A.
Talking to the world (including church) about change
B.
Talking to the church about change
C.
Talking to the church about some central ethical matters
Individual
Character and change
D.
Talking to the church concerning controversial ethical matters
Individual
Character, Abortion and sexual morality
Individual
Character and Homosexuality
Individual
Character, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
Summary:
Individual Character, Human Sexuality, Christian Norms
Social
Character and Ecclesial Considerations of Political Power
Social
Character and Environment
Social
Character and Capital Punishment
Social
Character and Women in Ministry
Social
Character and world religions
As a discipline, writers all too often limit spirituality and ethics to consideration of rules for individuals. This approach forgets the importance of ethical reflection and action in the context of the structure of human life and the end or purpose of human life. This context also raises the question of a meaningful and well-lived life. The openness of human beings to an uncertain and undefined future is an important element of ethics. Ethical reflection is an integral component of who we are as human beings and is significant for our consideration of the end, destiny, or purpose of humanity.
Ethics is a universal concern for humanity, and as such involves an understanding or philosophy of culture and society. Ethics reflects on ultimate goals and purposes for humanity. From a theological perspective, such a concern is not isolated as a phenomenon. Rather, it is part of our understanding of reality. Ethical concerns are part of the structure of a meaningful human life. This perspective is different from the pre-modern relegation of ethics to the realm of subjective and practical application, and religion to the objective realm of culture. In this presentation, what I want to avoid is that while ethics is universal, religion is a private and inward matter. I want to spend a few moments reflecting upon what a meaningful life in the context of the importance of the future from Christian theology.
The future rule of God is genuinely future. The nature of things has not yet appeared. Yet, it involves the essence of past and present. The future as defined by God involves that constitutes the being of past and present. Therefore, that future is already in relationship with past and present. The being of things depends upon the process of time. The outcome of the process will determine whether things long since disappeared will find a place in the rule of God. Eternity constitutes being in through outcome of the historical process. Time is a process that contributes to the essence or identity of things. The ultimate future makes the final determination as to the essence of things. That future becomes the substance of things about which it decides.
The openness of human beings to the world suggests that the essence of humanity one cannot fully know. Rather, the essence of humanity is always genuinely open to the future. Humanity will always need to orient drives toward something. That orientation occurs through experiences of the world. The physical and social world within which one finds oneself become the sources and means through which this orientation takes place. The world as humanity finds it does not bring satisfaction, so humanity continually remakes the physical and social world. Humanity transforms the world that once appeared given and static. Cultural formation, however, will never have the same significance for humanity as does nature for animals. Human questions go beyond what any culture can provide. Human questions go beyond any framework the social world provides. Humanity discovers its nature in the things at hand or in the social world as it is. Humanity itself is a question that has not yet received its answer. Human openness points beyond, to a reality that is not of the world. Yet, this openness includes this particular time and place. This openness points to an unknown reality humanity seeks, for in relationship to that reality human nature finds the fulfillment of its destiny.
The future rule of God determines the essence the essence of humanity and the achievement of human destiny. Hope in the future rule of God anticipates the effect unknown events will have on the essence of individuals and on the essence of humanity. This combination of future with eternity anticipates truth, for simple progress is not hope if it goes nowhere. Future essence participates in eternity and therefore constitutes the ground of reality, the hidden essence of the presence. The future essence is already present in a hidden way, and one can therefore anticipate it and draw our identity from it, even if it must always remain an open present for us. A future without eternity becomes meaningless change.
People speak of the death of God in a modern civilization because of the emphasis upon science, technology, social institutions that give people a high degree of control over their common future, and the anthropocentric nature of modernity. Hegel spoke of the infinite sorrow of a culture in which God is absent and finite reality has become absolute. He also believed this was a necessary stage on the way toward communion with God.
The modern social world as it presently exists is not the final form human society will take. Complete neutrality in religion is an illusion. More importantly, the emancipation of the individual requires connection to a community. The loss of family and the need to form personal identity in the context of community is an important dimension of human life. Culture cannot survive if significant numbers of persons lead lives without meaning or significance. Nor can culture survive if the only connections are matters of external coercion. Internal bonds between individuals and groups need to form in order for individuality and community to find provisional fulfillment in a social world.
The hope in the future rule of God that we experience in the present in a hidden way makes an important contribution to human self-understanding. If humanity is doomed to a future empty of essence, it means that personal and communal identity is threatened as well. We anticipate a future different from our present, doing so in hope, or in fear and anxiety. Personal and communal identity requires anticipation of eternity. Such anticipation provides a framework for orienting and committing oneself to one’s world. The accelerating pace of change within modernity requires such centers of orientation and commitment in order to preserve personal and corporate identity.
Getting beyond oneself appears to be the principle of all life, not just human life. All living organisms gain their identity in relation to other organisms. The human mind is able to stand beyond oneself and know that one anticipates in hope or fear. One way to think of this principle of life is that of spirit. We still maintain a dimension of this meaning by the use of the word “spirited” as one who is especially lively or full of life. In this sense, the divine spirit grasps us and moves us beyond. The immanence of spirit works toward integration and identity of an individual or group, occurring through a series of movements beyond self. Transcendence of spirit is that which is beyond self, yet which the self never fully contains. Transcendence never belongs to the individual, even though the individual can participate in it. Yet, the distinction between human and divine spirit is not appropriate, for it deprives humanity of understanding spirit. The risk is always that in moving beyond self we may encounter nothing but self.
In taking a stand beyond oneself, one already admits that one does not have the capacity to give meaning to one's own life. One looks for something beyond one's particular life to give that life meaning. One's particular setting one views in the context of larger horizon of meaning that one at least anticipates. Recognizing the limits of any social system suggests that if human life is to have meaning, one must connect to something beyond them. One never experiences that wholeness of meaning fully, but rather provisionally.
I would like to consider why it is that Christians need to consider the future rule of God as the proper foundation for our reflection on spiritual and moral matters.
The context of the ethic of Jesus is the soon arrival of the rule of God. Many modern persons consider this a liability. It would appear that since the end of the world as we know it did not occur quickly, the ethical teaching of Jesus and of the early church do not have continuing validity. The fact that the church formed a canon suggests otherwise, for the canon presupposes theological discussion concerning the continuing validity of certain texts. The question is whether Christian ethics needs to have a continuing connection to the Christian hope for the rule of God and the consequent of the fulfillment of creation and the wholeness of humanity.
First, we need to acknowledge that for modern persons, certain foundations for ethics are not persuasive. One is the proclamation of ethical imperatives backed by divine command. Although some people may not steal or commit adultery because of a divine command, their number rapidly declines in a modern civilization. Of course, this is far from true in pre-modern civilizations like those formed by Islamic culture. Neither can the appeal to conscience provide a norm for behavior. Conscience is an important dimension of the structure of being human, but it is also open to the changes of cultural convention. Further, Immanuel Kant was not successful in finding a formal imperative of action according to reason. Kant and the de-ontological tradition wanted to gain the perspective of the disinterested observer. It wants objectivity and necessity as a foundation. Yet, ethics arises out of what concerns us, and usually in specific instances. One could justify many atrocities based on the idea that one should follow a universal law. One problem with the rule that one’s own actions should be suitable as a principle of general legislation is that it denies the particularity and uniqueness of this moment of ethical action that may at times require behavior that would defy formulation as a principle suitable for universal application. Finally, the foundation of ethics in an accepted authority, such as the hierarchy of the church, demands obedience to an external authority with no further reason than that it is the authority. The suggestion is that obedience now will bring reward in the future, another form of eudaemonism.
I would suggest that we seek a foundation for ethical life in ontology. We can do this with an understanding of human action that goes beyond already existing patterns of behavior. Honestly confronting what is, ethics must point to what is to be, what can be, what ought to be.
A good place to start is connecting ethics with what is beyond presently realized human conditions. Such was the starting point of Socrates, who defined the good as that which all people lack and for which they strive. He made a distinction between what is and what ought to be, between being and value. That good is that which humanity does not possess, that which humanity must still strive to realize. This quest for the good, seeking what is good for human beings, provides the best staring point for ethical investigation.
The mistake of Socrates was in connecting the good with what is good for the individual. It led to eudaemonism. People seek what is good for them, yet life is ambiguous enough that they deceive themselves as to what is actually good for them. It suggests that the final concern of humanity is with humanity. Humanity is alone in the universe. When we define the good as happiness for humanity, we inescapably conclude that what matters is humanity. In fact, this was precisely Augustine’s definition of sin: individuals seeking their own happiness instead of God.
The question now becomes how we determine the nature of the good. We can agree that the end that humanity moves toward for its own sake is God. The condition for the hope of future happiness is commitment to God. Augustine moves toward the possibility that God, the true good, has priority over the happiness that God may grant in the future. The good is the future that yet needs fulfillment.
Unfortunately, Augustine suggested that God had quiet enjoyment of happiness in another world. We encounter the dualism and the pessimism regarding the world that induced a tendency to escape this world by looking for salvation in another. This same problem often engages the piety of the New Testament. Further, the eschatology of Augustine was transcendent, a being separate from the world who is also the goal of pious striving, leading to the desire to escape this world. God became a self-sufficient being, caught within transcendent and self-sufficient being. The idea that God is an entity that has the definite mode of being in some transcendent realm inevitably suggested that love for God moves in another direction than love for the world and for humanity.
In correcting Augustine, we need to view God as one who affirms the world, relating to the world as creator and as the hope for its future. God is the one who comes to establish the rule of God in this world. The idea of the good is essentially related to humanity and the human world because the good is concerned with the future of this human being the world of humanity. God becomes the ultimate good of the ethical quest. The rule of God and the full revelation of the existence of God await the future, thereby connecting to the future of the good as that which humanity does not possess but which is also the object of striving. God is the embodiment of the good. This good has priority over all human striving for the good. In this sense, the rule of God defines the ultimate horizon for all ethical statements.
If we care about anything, we are already in the moral struggle. Such care about the world is part of our ontological structure. Our openness to the world suggests continually being acted upon and acting in response to the conditions of the world. Making moral choices is always in this context of particularity from which we cannot abstract ourselves. I do not find it helpful to imagine a different setting, in which I might attain a degree of objectivity and universality in my moral choices. The modern civilization is one element of that setting, but the family, community, and the church are other elements of sometimes competing and sometimes supporting contexts of moral decision-making.
Specifically ethical reflection has the awareness that what is, is not what ought to be. It also recognizes that ethical decisions occur in an ambiguous world, meaning that no ethical principle is absolute, but rather exist in tension with other principles and with the particular situation. Christianity encourages human beings and societies to look beyond present achievements and orient oneself toward the fulfillment of the good life in God. Christianity recognizes that a human world will never fulfill the aspirations of humanity. Such meaning and fulfillment to human endeavor we find in God. Christianity relativizes all human endeavors in light of the future God has prepared for humanity. The direction such reflection and action takes, and the contribution Christianity can make, is a process we need to consider.
I accept myself as an agent or actor in history. I accept responsibility for my life story. I have the resources to make my life genuinely mine. I can locate myself within a community that includes a political, economic, and civic structure, as well as one of the church. Even things that happen to me that are beyond my control I can choose to make part of my story. The expectations of those with whom I associate to some degree shape my character, as they become my expectations of myself. We do not simply create by isolated will and determination character or the meaning structure of life. This orientation of self is what we understand sin to be. Rather, character and the meaning structure of life are the gift we receive through our involvement in various communities, which in turn make us aware of their limits. The limits of satisfaction and meaning we receive in human community connect us to the possibility beyond them and orient us toward god. Christian life is an attraction to Christ, to seek the formation of a Christ-like life, and to share with others the joy of that life.
The rest of the essay deals with what I would suggest are issues peculiar to the church in the way to shapes its ethical life. Portions of the ethical life as shaped in the church may be quite difficult for some persons to follow. However, the importance of Christian community is that others are present to help, support, encourage, and hold accountable. Here are a few considerations.
The churches have a responsibility to continue the discussion that the apostolic witness began in matters related to a well-lived and reasonably happy human life. In matters related to vice and virtue, the New Testament is reasonably clear about the kind of life Christians are to develop and the kind of life they must avoid. In some areas, sufficient ambiguity exists to continue discussion. Such reading of the text requires the modern reader to listen carefully, wisely, and with discernment.
We need to consider the relationship between law and gospel. I want to consider both the Mosaic Law and the natural law of conscience and their connection with the gospel.
In
pre-modern societies, religion provided justification for the order of society.
Part of that order was the legal system. Pre-modern societies find it necessary
to legitimate their legal system by divine authorization. With divine
authorization came the inability to revise or replace. Rather, exposition of
divine law became the focus of priestly activity. The law is a fixed
formulation of the will of God. The law
binds one to a specific form of conduct.
The
orientation of Jesus to the future rule of God, combined with the belief that
the rule of God began through the ministry of Jesus, meant that Jesus altered
his approach to Torah in two directions. He could now read Torah through the
fulfillment of Torah in the command to love God and neighbor. As such, any
claim in Torah that did not aim toward these two commands or assist in their
fulfillment he could set aside or re-interpret. Another direction in which
Jesus altered his approach to Torah was that he viewed any application of Torah
in light of the future and coming reign of God. In these ways, Jesus made Torah
relative in its authority. He also opened up the possibility of discovering the
normative value of Torah as given to
For Christians,
Jesus has meant release from the authority of Torah. Paul makes it clear that
the death of Jesus on the cross fulfills the sacrificial dimension of Torah.
Further, the moral dimensions of Torah find fulfillment in life by the Spirit.
Paul viewed the law in the context of salvation history. Unfortunately, as we enter the second
century, the Gentile church came to view Jesus as a new Moses. Therefore, he came to give a new law.
Augustine deepened the concept of
natural law, teaching that Jesus has purified and completed it. The continuing topic of natural law deals
with the question of our common human nature, which we cannot evade. It also addresses the basic anthropological
conditions of social life. Such
mutuality between individuals is the basis for formulating standards of human
conduct. From a Christian perspective,
we acknowledge our sinfulness on the one hand, and our destiny for fellowship
with God on the other. The gospel
fulfills the law. Apostolic teaching is
moral guidance. However, this does not
mean their teaching becomes a new law.
They are not permanent rulings on independent apostolic authority and
therefore new law. We do not ignore this
teaching. We may do so only if
authorized by the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. However, the difference from law stands
true. If we believe the natural law or
the moral law is the standard for that fulfillment, then we neglect the
creative freedom and multiplicity of possibilities of life that flow from
love.
The imagination of love can create
new forms that aptly meet new situations in their uniqueness. Love has the power to give new life to what
is right by developing in extraordinary circumstances. Love develops new solutions and modes of
action that do better justice to the situation.
Love, with its many creative possibilities, stands in contrast to a
legal form of life that is regulated in the same way for each case. The tendency of formulated law is to help
establish a traditional order of life.
Love is more flexible and can bring new solutions to new
situations. In principle, love may
develop many creative responses to the demands of situations in life.
The New Testament contains many
moral teachings. As Karl Barth has said,
they unfold the implications of the fellowship of believers with Jesus
Christ. The unity of the love of Christ
holds them together. This difference
between law and gospel does not rest on any antithesis in principle. Instead, love, aiming by nature at
fellowship, also has permanence in view.
Therefore, it is inclined to protect and preserve the existing order, as
well as establish new and permanent forms of social life.
Protestant ethics begins with human
freedom. The task became that of
deriving justice and law from freedom itself.
Love, as the source of lasting fellowship is the basis of what is
right. It alone perfects law. The need for law expresses the imperfect
state of human society in this world in which not all accept others and do what
is right on their own. The same is true
of the political state, which makes citizens keep the laws. The future fulfillment of human fellowship in
the reign of God does not need either law or state power. However, the church leaves room in the hearts
of people and social life for the future reign of God. The church partially mediates the reality of
the rule of God today as a life free from law and power, and establishes itself
in love and grace.
I now want to consider the question of whether the Christian message of grace and forgiveness actually works against the claims of moral and ethical reflection. Some people interpret the gospel message of the forgiveness of sin as license to do as one pleases, which would destroy any Christian ethical guidance. The question is whether the message of grace itself encourages sinful behavior. The question is whether Christianity considers morality seriously, or as ultimately having insignificant place in relation to eternity.
The mistake of the reformation was to place justification and forgiveness of sin in priority over the plan of God for the reconciliation of humanity with each other and with God. I grant that modern persons may not think they need forgiveness. My suspicion is that we need it more than we think.
Justification
and forgiveness of sin make us right with God in light of the future and coming
judgment of God. We can stand before God in the future because of this act of
God, and therefore not because of anything we have done. This occurs through
faith, as we enter into fellowship with God through Christ. Justification in
the presence of God occurs through faith apart from law, whether Torah or
natural law. We are righteous before God while still sinners because we remain human, and therefore imperfect, in our
walk with God. We cannot remove guilt or meaninglessness on our own. Unforgiven
sin is a burden to heavy for us to carry throughout life. It leaves little room
for love to grow and mature. Forgiveness requires a gracious act from God. God
is the one who bears the cost of this forgiveness. The acceptance we receive
from God occurs even while we are sinners. This acceptance from God is the
basis of our fellowship with God. Justification is not a process, but an act
that occurs by grace and through faith. Justification gives imperfect believers
the assurance of present and future fellowship with God.
Yet, this
act of God in justification is not a purely external act. The intent is to open
humanity to the possibility of genuine transformation into the persons and
communities that God intends. This act of grace and love from God continues in
the process of reconciliation, as dimensions of the human disorder of sin
become open to the transforming work of the life-giving Spirit of God. Our sin
is against God. However, our sin normally affects the lives of others with whom
we need reconciliation. We stand before God with those against whom we have
sinned, and with whom God seeks our reconciliation. Paul refers to this process
as being “in Christ.” Believers become children of God in adoption, regenerate,
sanctified, and have peace with God. Christian life as a whole is a life in
faith, the faith that lifts us up above ourselves to fellowship with Christ and
therein to hope and love. Human sorrow and pain arise out of experience of the
world. The reconciliation and transformation God seeks through the Spirit
influences the humanity toward the destiny of fellowship with each other and
with God. Healing the sickness and disorder of humanity is a cooperative
affair. The grace of God does not replace the responsibility of human action,
but becomes the foundation, preserver, and goal of that action. The church does
not yet see such a surplus of love in the world that it holds its message to
itself. Rather, it invites others to consider the love and grace of God moving
toward humanity and invites people and communities to become open to this love.
The process
of sanctification is the process of God winning back every dimension of
individuals and communities to the future God has for humanity. The
self-surrender of God on the cross calls for the self-surrender of individuals
to God and the openness to change this requires. All of this occurs through the
work of the Spirit. The structure of human life is such that it remains open to
the natural and social world, in spite of many occasions for disillusionment
with that experience. Our openness to God continues that human experience of
openness.
Any
discussion of Christian ethic raises seems to raise the question of salvation
by grace through faith and salvation through works. I do find it interesting
that we spend so much time upon Romans 3:21-26.
Romans 3:21-26 (NRSV)
21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
Yet, we tend to spend so little time on a passage like this.
Romans 12:9-21 (NRSV)
9 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
We become
open to God in faith as trust in the one who guides us toward a future of which
we do not have detailed knowledge, even though Christ is the foreshadowing of
that future. As Christian faith, it directs us to the historical revelation of
God in Christ, even though our knowledge of history is always provisional. As
faith, it recognizes the contingent of every human act of trust. Faith
recognizes the element of doubt and risk contained in the act of faith.
Conflicting claims to truth, as well as the experience of suffering and death,
will always make Christian life a mater of faith, rather than knowledge based
upon clear and distinct ideas.
We become
open to God in hope of the future toward which God moves humanity. Advances in
political and economic knowledge, advances in science and technology, will
never be enough for human beings to place their hope in them. Even progress in
curing social evils is always provisional and imperfect. In fact, hope suggests
the provisional and incomplete nature of the present. It also suggests human
cooperation in the work of God, a risk that God took in forming independent
beings. This hope contains an element of self-transcendence in moving persons
and communities beyond themselves and toward God. Hope participates in the
healing work of God in the human race. The basis of this hope is the promise of
God in Christ, which thus directs us away from our culture and us. Isolated,
fragmented individuals will never experience the fullness of this hope. We
discover individual identity as we engage in relationships with others.
Meaningful and well-lived lives remain open to others, and therefore Christian
hope includes the well-being of others. Yet, such connections never find
fulfillment in a human world. Only
God can preserve individual and social identity in reconciliation. When focused
upon hopes for this world, Christian engagement with the modern social world
inevitably results in frustrations with the fragmentation of special interest
groups. Religion itself becomes a tool for the improvement of this culture,
rather than directing humanity to the hope of what lies beyond. Christian hope
recognizes the limits of any human achievement.
We become
open to God in love as the fulfillment of Christian life. God loves the world, and
genuine Christian engagement with the world participates in that love. We love
God in and through the other, fulfilling the love that does not seek its own,
as Paul suggested in I Corinthians 13. Christians at times have interpreted
love for God as a forgetfulness of the world that God loves. Such separation
from the world by Christians is not what God intends. The Orthodox tradition
has a valid understanding of Christian participation in the grace of God that
lifts us beyond ourselves and involves us in a process of becoming increasingly
like Christ. The unfolding of love and grace in the history of Jesus is the
pattern for Christian understanding of the grace and love of God. Such grace
and love allow us to be “in Christ,” and are the ways in which Christ is in us.
The church is a community of faith. As such, it has beliefs that form an important dimension of its life together. Even if the lives of Christians and their churches are the most important witness to those outside the church, the beliefs of the church are significant in that if discredited, the church itself will whither away. We need to consider ways in which modernity influences the formation of Christian belief.
Christians come to their religious sources with a way of life already shaped by the modern view of the world. I would like to make an effort at bringing to light a struggle many Christians do not know they have. This contextual, historical, and cultural fact is nothing new. Individuals do not create a form of life; their parents give them birth into a form of life to which individuals react in both conscious and unconscious ways. The first Christians used the cultural material they had at their disposal to formulate their theological conceptions. The first century was imperfect in its form of life. Yet, it provided categories, models, and metaphors that New Testament authors considered adequate to communicate their understanding of the work of God in Christ. They accepted a three-tiered universe and the expected apocalyptic end of human history brought about God. They accepted the revelatory character of the Hebrew Scriptures, the importance of temple worship and the sacrificial system in understanding forgiveness, and the law as a way of life and expressive of the moral character of God. They understood the mercy and grace of God shown in significant moments in history. Their theological reflection arose out of the debate with Judaism and the spread of the movement into the Greek and Roman world through the cultural model of the household. One could add many other threads of culture that became fertile ground for New Testament theological reflection. Throughout the history of the church, this use of culture as a valid theological source for reflection has been important, suggested in the use of Plato, Neo-platonic thought, Aristotle, feudalism, the penitential practice of the Roman Catholic Church, mystical experience, and the legal system, all provided fertile material for theological reflection throughout the early church period and the medieval period. This period witnessed considerable success of the New Testament emphasis upon family as the goal of society.
One concern
is to ask about the future existence of the church. Gordon Kaufmann, a
revisionist theologian who acknowledges that his community of conversation is
academia, has the fear that if the church submits to the authority of its
tradition it will lose the present generation because it cannot relate. He does
not want the church to make an authoritarian move. He believes the church needs
to adapt its practices and reconstruct the symbols it cherishes. Thomas Oden, a
classical theologian whose primary conversation partner is the church, fears
that if the church accepts the authority of present categories as superior to
classical Christianity, Christianity will die. The point is that theologians of
both revisionist and classical theologians have a fear that Christianity will
die unless their theological program finds acceptance. Personally, I do not
share the fear of some that the church will not exist. As has happened with
past religions, history will demonstrate the truth or falsity of Christianity.
Religions continue because people continue to believe in what they teach and
adopt the form of life the religion commends. Many religions have died. Their
sacred texts no longer inspire and challenge people today. Although we might
like more certainty, I know of no other answer to the truth claims of any
religion. The future will tell the story. We can make decisions in the present
based upon our sense of life and the future. Such decisions are always steps of
faith.
Some
Christians express their conservative, evangelical, or fundamental faith in a
way that refuses to engage the modern world. They view orthodoxy as having its
roots in integrated biblical teaching interpreted in the first millennia of
Christianity, before the split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
They look for an ancient consensual scriptural teaching. They focus their
energies upon classical Christianity, usually understood as scripture, the
seven Ecumenical Councils, the creeds, authors of the first millennium like
Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Ambrose, and since Protestant theology, the
writings of “classic persons” like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. The positive
element in this approach is its insistence that the ancients longed for truth
as much as moderns do, and thus classic texts are not simply instruments of
power and oppression. However, they also represent the danger of being backward
looking and nostalgic, attempting to keep alive outmoded and irrelevant
patterns of action and thought. They focus their energies upon private prayer,
meditation, and contemplation. They develop a dualistic view that encourages
them to view the world as so evil that Christians need to escape or retreat
from it rather than engage it. The world is darkness, ruled by demonic forces,
and principalities and powers. The church accepts rule by Jesus and is a place
of holiness. Such a dualistic view inevitably leads to turning from human life
in the world, for it is insignificant in comparison to preparing believers for
heaven. Such an approach to Christianity has the danger of isolating God into
an otherworldly ghetto. The retreat from modern society is not helpful in
bringing healing to others, as well as demonstrating the love of God for the
world.
Too many
Christians refuse to view developments within modernity as positive sources for
Christian theological reflection. They tend to view modernity as primarily
something against which Christianity must react. The conservative focuses upon
personal morality and the abuse of freedom. The liberal focuses upon
consumerism, poverty, corporate culture, and international relations.
My
contention is simple. Modernity actually allows the church to focus on what it
does best in directing people toward the best life they can lead. During the
Medieval and Reformation period, the church involved itself with the power
institutions of society, and in so doing focused its energies on wealth, power,
fame, and prestige. In a secular society, the church no longer sits with those
in power, thereby freeing the church to direct individuals and culture to
choose freely what is best. Modernity does not have to view itself as the end
of religion, for it recognizes that its program of science, technology,
pluralism, economic, political, and intellectual freedom, and so on, is not a
total vision of human life. In the same way, Christianity recognizes that its
classic texts do not present a totalistic view of human society and life. I
hope to show that we have good reason to be Christian and modern persons.
The
religious sources of Christians are classic texts: the bible, the creeds, the
liturgy, and the basic doctrines and confessions of faith that Roman Catholic,
Orthodox, Episcopal, and mainline Protestant denominations received from their
heritage. The creeds and other traditional statements of the churches are
historical products. What I hope to do is to provide adequate grounds for
speaking directly of Christian faith and action in a modern and pluralistic
world, and doing so with the integrity of its own unique voice as it exists in
a pluralistic culture. I do not think we can legitimately find an essence of
all religion or reduce religion to a common foundation, an analogy many persons
receive from science and mathematics. Such an approach is reductionism that
quickly becomes totalitarian. Rather, we need to approach the variety in
religion as the variety of aesthetic pleasures. Theology cannot find a
universal cultural or philosophical perspective from which to conduct its
reflection. Theology cannot find a public sphere from which to speak; it must
speak with its own voice in a way that respects the form conversation takes in
a pluralistic society. Christians need to find ways to present their
reflections on Jesus and on the human predicament in the context of a
pluralistic society. Some religions, such as fundamentalist Islam, reject the
dialogue implied in a pluralistic society, and therefore simply restate
repeatedly in the hope that this messy pluralism will one day go away.
We
believe in Jesus with the apostles as witnesses to Jesus, and thereby in the
tradition, that mediates that belief. The tradition mediates the reality of
Jesus to us. Jesus is the one remembered by the tradition that mediates him in
word, sacrament, and action. Christians know Jesus through the witness of the
biblical material, which is also the witness of the church. The Jesus we know
and the Jesus to whom we respond is the Jesus remembered in the apostolic
witness. Our response to Jesus is at once highly personal and highly communal.
This suggests that Christianity remains wherever a community takes seriously
the history of Jesus, the basic proclamation (kerygma) of the church, and calls
for a response to understand intellectually and to open oneself to the
transformation of life toward becoming like Christ implied the texts. As
classic person, event, and text converge, I am suggesting that Christianity
rests upon intense particularity of what God has done in Jesus of Nazareth on
the one hand with the promise of the universal significance of Jesus on the
other. Christianity cannot have abiding significance without people continuing
to believe this and live their lives individually and corporately according to
it.
What I
want to suggest is something quite simple: the bible and the Christian
tradition are the wisdom of our heritage to which we direct our attention as we
seek to discern directions we take today in our beliefs and values. This means
that neither the bible nor the Christian tradition is adequate prescriptive
texts for psychology, economic ideology, or political ideology. Although we may
find helpful clues for the social influence of Christianity, we do not find a
specific cultural, political, or economic program contained in the texts.
Neither the scripture nor the tradition of the church arose in times when
people had yet discovered an imperfect but adequate way to organize society.
However, the fact that we can identify the difference in historical and
cultural setting between the modern social world and the social world of the
bible and the rise of Christian tradition reminds us of the underlying
commonality of the human experience. Even with all the influence our social
world in shaping us as individuals, we are still human beings with hope, fear,
dread, capacity to deceive ourselves, anxiety, love, weakness, evil, and so on,
as possibilities for our lives. As wisdom texts, the bible and tradition
provide insights and clues for discerning the ways of God today and for
charting a course for the future. However, the process is more like an artistic
one, as over against a legal or scientific process. Modern people, embedded so profoundly with
scientific and technological expectations of the world, often must make a shift
in perspective or awareness I might liken to a Gestalt experience or a leap to
another vantage point from which to live our lives.
Some
Christians retreat into a subculture in which they convince themselves they are
the true Christians, and indeed the only reflection of genuine Christian faith.
The retreat involves holding to what they think of as the literal view of the
bible or of the creeds. The bible becomes the chief miracle. Such persons
refuse to factor their modern world consciously into the formation of their
beliefs. For them, six days means six 24-hour days of creation, and so on. My
suspicion, however, is that many Christians within modernity approach their
sources with the glasses of their modern world firmly in place. Consequently,
when modern Christians reflect upon who God is, we go well beyond the limited
tribal deity and primitive culture confronted in certain layers of biblical
tradition.
A
Christian open to modernity as a source for theological reflection does not
turn to the bible for knowledge of science. They read about six days of
creation, and quickly place such a thought in a different realm,
re-interpreting in light of modern physics or dismiss it as an antiquated part
of the bible that has no bearing upon Christian life today. They read about
Adam and Eve and suspect it is a story rather than something literal. They
struggle with what the story means for relationships between husband and wife,
but most modern persons would not insist upon historical reality of the text.
They read about a worldwide flood, in which God murders the human race except
for one family, and re-interpret it in light of a softer view of God.
Christians
open to modernity as a source for theological reflection read in the bible many
disturbing stories. They read that God selects one family and one ethnic group,
Hebrews or Jews, and re-interpret it quickly, rather than reflect upon why God
appears to favor one group rather than favoring all persons and cultures
equally. They read about the sun standing still for Joshua and may focus on the
scientific miracle and omit the moral problem that God did this so that the
soldiers of Joshua could kill more people. They gloss over prayers for the
destruction of enemies. They read about the cross and understand it light of
the love one must have in order to die for another rather than reflect too
deeply on sacrificial language alien to us. They read the stories of the
appearances to the disciples in light of our desire for God to recognize us at
the time of our death and grant us new life, rather than engage the textual
difficulties evident in reading those narratives. They read of the ascension of
Jesus without putting it in the context of Jesus simply rising above the canopy
that surrounds the earth. They ask God to “remember” when they know God cannot
forget. They ask God to do things for them while recognizing that most of
prayer consists of aligning ourselves more firmly with God and becoming channels
of what God wants to do in the world. They tend to view these matters
spiritually in the sense that we look for how the text engages us in our quest
for what it means for us to be here, at this time and place.
Modernity
influences the way modern people approach the biblical text. The God modern
people worship and serve has its source in modernity as much as in the bible or
tradition. The God modern Christians worship looks like one in which the modern
world will have a greater possibility arriving at belief. What kind of God is
that? Modern people recognize that the language of any human being, ancient or
modern, has limitations in its ability to describe God. Yet, most modern people
recognize that human language is all we have. Therefore, modern Christians can
excuse the attempts of previous generations to relate God to their world.
Modern Christians also accept responsibility to relate God to modern
civilization. They do so in a way that
they must discover and educate themselves as to the meaning of the text for
them today, incorporating the metaphors and narratives into the modern story.
Christian sources inspire worship, theology, and experience, without confining
theological reflections to those sources or experiencing them as confining.
One danger
Christianity faces is that retreat will dominate the energy of laity, clergy,
and theologians. Another danger is that Christianity will lose its unique
voice. This pluralistic and tolerant society needs to hear the claims to truth
that Christianity proposes. In particular, mainline Protestant denominations
need to create places where its people can engage in such discussion in ways
that matter. In the
The church is a community of love. In this sense, the liberal theology of the 1800’s was quite right to emphasize the ethical dimension of Christianity and church. The church is an ethical community, even as it has so often fallen short of its own ideals. The fractured and fragmented life of the church is often flickering light in a sometimes dark world.
What does
it mean to be a Christian today? How shall we live as Christians today? The
shift from facts and beliefs toward a Christian form of life is significant.
One can believe all the “right” things, and still be a difficult person with
whom to deal, still have problems with depression, still have profound ethical
struggles at work, and still be a thorn in the side of pastors. The bible and
the traditions of the churches become mediators of sacred life, and in that
sense become sacramental elements of Christian life and community. The power of
the bible and tradition derive from their continuing ability to nourish people
and communities. They would become dead tradition if it were not for the
productive power at work in individual and communal life. The Christian open to
modernity as a source for theological reflection does not turn to the bible or
theology for a coherent and comprehensive philosophy of life. They recognize
that Christians depend upon other sources for economic, political,
psychological, and philosophical insights. No one can relieve the church or
individual Christians of the responsibility for discerning the proper uses of
theological sources available within modernity. This approach to theological
reflection respects the ways of God in the world today, as it also respects the
ways of God in the bible and tradition, and even in one’s own life. The church
and Christians have an interest in the modern culture in which they live, for
the institutional church itself crumbles when society crumbles. The church has
an interest in being among the forces that help individuals and culture to be
the best they can humanly become.
Religion is a way of engendering
and forming our experience. Becoming an adherent to a religion is much like
learning to speak a language. To be religious is to be a participant in a
culture, a mélange of habits, words, rituals, practices, tradition, and stories
that move the participant into a different world than that person would live in
without the imposition of religion. To convert to a faith is not to discover
something within us, but to become part of a new culture, to take up a new
language that changes what is within us. Religion shapes us, and thus is not
just our projection. Religion forms our inclinations, and thus does not just
express them. Religion opens us to experiences we would not have had we not
been taught about them. Language precedes experience. Theory shapes and evokes
experiences. We must have someone tells us the story of Jesus before we can
know Jesus. We must learn the habits and gestures whereby Christians have a
relationship with Jesus. Christianity is a culture within a culture.
In American culture, we have much
for which to be grateful: political freedom, free enterprise (economic
freedom), intellectual freedom, pluralism, toleration, a secular government
(not theocratic), science and technology that improves the condition of all its
citizens, a nation that people illegally seek to enter (how many nations can
say that?), and so on. Too often, preachers of both the left and right denounce
consumerism, imperialism, materialism, capitalism, while at the same time
enjoying the benefits that American culture provides. Particularism and
mutuality combine in the process of institutionalization in such a way that it
can suitably replace the traditional theological doctrine of the orders of
creation. A purely alienating critique of
I find increasing help from the
church of the Protestant churches of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment
church often carries with it today the critique that it was superficial. Yet,
it made great advances. It recognized human rights such as freedom of
conscience and freedom of religion, it abolished torture, it ended the
persecution of witches, and involved itself in other human achievements. It
demanded intelligible religious services, more effective preaching, and more
up-to-date pastoral and administrative methods for the churches.
One of the major tasks of
contemporary ecclesiology has been to obtain a fresh understanding of what
constitutes community and to
argue that ecclesia is intrinsically communal in structure. Schleiermacher,
Hegel, and Ritschl provided an important impetus in this direction. The ethical
and moral character of the church is an important dimension of its life
together. One of the emphases that the New Testament borrowed from Judaism was
the combination of religion with morality. The second century of the Christian
era saw the defense of Christianity arise that it was similar to the philosophical
schools in promoting character and morality. We forget that in the past, the
separation of morality from ritual in religion was quite standard. The
Enlightenment re-emphasized the importance of the ethical and moral nature and
therefore the communal nature of the church. The individualism of the
Enlightenment led to a perfectionist and legalistic emphasis, but we need to
remember the core truth here. The church needs to show its ethical and moral
quality in the way it embodies these qualities in its fellowship and
institutional life. The way the church relates to its culture, the way the
church structures itself, the values it upholds, the way it handles conflict
and difference, the way it embodies whatever degree of unity it can embody,
reflect ethical and moral concerns. The church identifies itself with quite
human desires and dreams at this point, as it struggles with other human groups
and governments in moving toward what is best for the human race. The church
recognizes that what honors God also honors humanity.
My understanding of a life within a secular and modern society is that citizens of such a society receive many positive benefits. The core of that benefit is freedom. This value of a modern society embeds itself in institutional life through a measure of political and economic freedom, intellectual freedom that expresses itself in the freedom to print, speak, and persuade others, religious freedom, freedom to associate with others of like mind, and so on. Moral and ethical freedom has slowly evolved as an important addition. Further, science and technology has become an important pursuit for physical well-being, the basic comforts for ordinary people, for the defense of the country, and generally for the use of nature to advance human happiness. Modern society is the first society to raise individuality to an important social institution. Government exists to protect rights that government did not create. Rather, individuals already have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, as they understand it.
I will discuss some controversial issues. Christians need to be careful the spirit in which they enter such discussions.
First, we need to serve the church and its members. For myself, I want to strengthen Christians in their ethical life in a morally ambiguous age. The form of life the church has recommended in most denominations remains quite consistent. I think the church can have confidence that its form of life has much to commend it, even in a secular society.
Second, we need to have present our views in a spirit of prayer. God influences me as I write and you as you read. If we are open, God will open the heart and mind of each of us. Even where we disagree, we can have prayerful spirits.
Third, we need to live what we preach and teach. Graciousness in the midst of controversy within the church is a quality that the church needs to embody.
Fourth, even where we disagree, we can present with modesty and firmness the portion of the truth we perceive. For me, this means taking seriously the bible as a whole, and the apostolic witness in particular.
Fifth, the church needs to present its teaching in love toward a society that will often disagree. People within the church need to present their understanding of the Christian message with love toward whom they disagree. The Christian community now consists of separated churches. If the churches have any hope of moving toward union, it will be because they take seriously the deliberations of others. We do not have the benefit of church councils to resolve disputes. What we do have is the discipline of local churches and denominational structures. Yet, even here, the voluntary structure of modern society means that dissatisfied church members can go down to the street to a church more to their liking. Clergy can do so as well. Especially in controversial matters, denominational families need to consider seriously the deliberations of secular society as well as other denominational families. We need to turn lovingly toward others, listen to them, as well as share lovingly with others conclusions to which we have come.
Sixth, we
need to recognize the profound influence of sin in the church and in society in
our disputes. Dispute often brings out of us the darkest sides of us.
Among the
many struggles for persons living in a such society is that people quickly
learn that freedom is not a value. Freedom is a social condition, but no one
dictates to the individual the best course of action. Contrary to the Platonic
vision in The Republic, modern
society does not organize itself in such a way that guides individuals toward
the best human life. In fact, a modern society admits it does not know in what
the best human life consists. A modern society has confidence in science and
technology, the wisdom of the people to select rulers, the wisdom to form a
domestic life, and the wisdom of the people to pursue their economic interests
without large interference from government. Government has natural limits
placed upon it by its duty to protect individual rights.
In this
context, we can readily observe that human beings often choose self-destructive
forms of life. Modernity is not going to stop persons from pursuing such forms
of life. The emphasis that modern persons generally place upon the future being
better than today leads many to neglect the past as a valid resource for
reflection upon such moral and ethical matters. In particular, the foundations
of moral, ethical, and religious reflection have their beginning in pre-modern
and pagan civilizations. Many modern persons will dismiss these resources.
What I want
to show is that, as modern persons, we can consult the bible in a reasonable
way for its wisdom on ethical matters that we face today. I do not want to do
this in what scholars call a Biblicist way. I realize that for the modern
church, what the bible says does not end the discussion. I grant that mainline
churches do not approach this matter with closed minds and hearts. In other
words, tradition, culture and personal experience may well help us to
re-examine the matters with which the bible deals. At the same time, what I
want to show is that the bible has wisdom to offer the modern age.
New Testament ethics begins as an historical enterprise. This means allowing the texts to speak as clearly as we can. In the area of morality and ethics, the struggles of human beings have not changed as much as one might think.
The matter
of personal morality has long been an area where Christians of every
theological and denominational persuasion have large areas of agreement. Of
course, in the past, matters like smoking, drinking, having television, going
to movies, wearing certain kinds of clothes, and so on, constituted grounds for
vigorous debate, and sometimes caused denominations to begin. However, none of
these arguments involved a disagreement over the veracity of biblical values.
For that reason, I will treat homosexuality as a separate matter. I point out
that this matter has divided the church in a profound way. One reason is that
the church has rarely disagreed with explicit statements of the biblical text
in the matter of personal values. The second is that personal morality and character
usually had a broad range of agreement. Today, the church divides over this
matter, so I intend to give it special treatment.
I would
like to suggest that the church focus upon the development of virtue and
character. Rules and obligations gain their significance out of the context of
the social, economic, and ecclesial community, as well as the pattern of life
one lives. Concentration upon virtue and character means that in an ambiguous
world of often conflicting moral decisions, we entrust doing the right thing to
persons and communities that have developed virtuous life. For the church, to
be a Christian is to learn to be at home in God’s world. We learn about and our
world ourselves in the Christian narrative of human life. If we do not find the
story makes sense, we may abandon the story for another. However, for the
church, the point of living as a Christian in a modern world is that the story
makes sense in that it helps us to see the world and ourselves truly. We see
ourselves as sinners in need of redemption. We see the development of the
person God wants us to be as more important than what we do in particular
settings.
Individualism
as understood by some modern Enlightenment thinkers was not an option in the
first century. The Sermon on the Mount becomes an impossible ethical ideal only
for those who isolate themselves from a community that seeks to live by it.
Jesus intended his commitment to love of enemies and non-violence for the real
world in which he lived and for the real people to whom he preached and with
whom he lived. In the context of the
Anyone who
denies that the ethic of the New Testament did not have the intention of
shaping human life runs the risk of a
docetic Christology, for one wonders then if Jesus lived a human life, or
somehow lived a transcendent or divine life, God walking on earth, so to speak.
This
suggests (against Barth) that the role of the bible in the formation of
Christian life must consider the specific and narrative character of the text.
As the canon of the church, the bible relates a story of the saving, healing,
reconciling, history of the dealings of God with humanity. Even the Ten
Commandments are part of the story of the people of God. The specificity of
this narrative to its context always needs consideration as we seek
faithfulness to God in our specific and narrative situation today. Christians
today do not have the luxury of pointing to rule in the bible and automatically
applying the rule to a situation today. Rather, such rules and stories provide
opportunity for reflection, combining dialogue with tradition and with one’s
own cultural setting. I grant that this approach runs the risk of substituting
personal whims and wishes for the will of God. However, if one listens
carefully to the text, such a result is not necessary. This position also
avoids the attempt to define beforehand what one ought to do in certain
situations. To re-emphasize, ethical and moral reflection arise out of specific
situations and relationships, and within a cultural context, in which a rule in
the bible does not determine beforehand the result of ethical decision-making.
I suspect
that some form of consequentialism (consistent with Niebuhr) in ethical
reflection is important for Christians living in a human world. Christians need to consider the practical implications
of their behavior in the context of the social world in which they live.
Christian ethics will look quite differently in 21st century
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (NRSV)
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (NRSV)
12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.
My intent is not to give an extensive historical study of New Testament ethics. I simply invite you to reflect with me upon some central elements of that ethics in the context of how we might use the wisdom of the bible to guide our reflections and shape our concerns and desires for our modern lives.
The focus of Christian ethical reflection is upon the development of character toward a life worthy of God. Paul says that the human body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies do not belong to us, but to God. We dare do nothing to destroy that which God has made and honored. That includes our own bodies as well as the body of the other. We have an emobodied existence, and consequently all individual ethical reflection needs to consider how we honor God in the body.
I realize that our reflections could become quite legalistic at this point. We could consider all the ways that modernity allows us to dishonor the body. Instead, I would like to continue with my understanding of New Testament ethical considerations as an historical study. I want to move on to a discussion of the lists of virtue and vice in the New Testament. This help us keep our reflections to the kinds of things that the New Testament considered as dishonor of the body.
I want to focus upon the orientation of human life toward the future God has prepared for us makes all rules relative to that end.
The specific content of moral judgment is relative to the ends that God seeks for humanity.
In this place, I want to consider biblical notions of vice and virtue as proper guidance for personal life and behavior.
Philippians 4:8 (NRSV)
8 Finally,
beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is
pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence
and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
2 Corinthians 6:6-7a (NRSV)
6 by
purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, 7
truthful speech …
Galatians 5:22-23, 26 (NRSV)
22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.
Ephesians 4:1-3 (NRSV)
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Colossians 3:12-17 (NRSV)
12 As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. 13 Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
2 Peter 1:5-7 (NRSV)
5 For
this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with
goodness, and goodness with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with
self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7
and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.
One danger of isolating a list of virtue and vice in the New Testament is that we can easily forget the communal context of this guidance. The New Testament arose out of the Christian community and its concerns. Among those concerns was to lead a life worthy of living in Christ. Christian life needs to reflect the grace one has received in justification and sanctification. One can make advances in such a life in morality because one is part of a community. The New Testament has little to say one who wants to live virtuously in a strictly individual sense. If one isolates this list from their communal context, it could lead to arrogance and a holier-than-thou attitude, an attitude distant from what the New Testament intends. In fact, I would suggest the opposite. The intent of these lists is to point out the commonality the lives of Christians have with any person striving toward the good life. I would hesitate to call these qualities uniquely Christian, for most of them we can find in other religions of the world and among philosophers before Christ. In other words, most of these virtues and vices reflect what human beings desire to do and be, and desire to avoid, when they are at their best. If someone who is faithful adherent of another religion or of no religion at all, I would think that person reading this list would find little with which to disagree. The focus of the following list is from Philippians 4:8 and Galatians 5:22-23, and supplemented by a few other texts to round out the list of virtues. Although this is a small part of the New Testament, the qualities contained in these lists find their way into many portions of the New Testament.
Alhqh (true) can refer to statements that agree with facts, things
characterized by reality as genuine, and when used of persons refer to persons
of integrity. It refers to honesty.
Semna
(honorable) refers to what is venerated for character and honorable, whether of
persons or deeds. It can mean of persons august, solemn, stately, or majestic,
of things as noble or wonderful. It can refer to what is appropriate, befitting
behavior that implies dignity and respect. Thus, it refers to what is honorable
and worthy of respect and of good character.
Dikaio~
(just) may mean in this context rendering to people their due, doing what is
right and proper by others, being fair and honest with them.
Agna
(pure) refers to being without moral defect, and therefore pure, chaste,
upright, innocent, often in the sense of being without intent to do wrong in a
matter, and thus harmless and acceptable behavior.
Prosfilh
(pleasing) refers to what is pleasing, acceptable, and lovely. It pertains to
that which causes people to be pleased with something. It refers to what is agreeable.
When used of persons, it refers to friendliness and being well-disposed and
feel kindly toward another.
Eufhma
(commendable) refers to speaking good words to another, doing what is worthy of
praise, doing what is deserving of approval or good reputation, to fill the
mind with things worthy of praise. It refers to what us auspicious, of good
report, praiseworthy, and commendable.
Areth
(excellent) refers to virtue and wonderful acts. It refers to the quality of
moral excellence, outstanding goodness and virtue. It includes a good quality
of any kind, including valor and prowess. As a moral characteristic, it refers
to virtue, uprightness, and goodness. See II Peter 1:5 and Philippians 4:8.
Epaino~
(worthy of praise) refers to speaking of the excellence of a person, object, or
event, approval, praise, and commendation. It is an expression of high
evaluation by people.
Agaph
(love) refers to an attitude of appreciating resulting from a conscious
evaluation and choice. It refers to love and devotion. It refers to concern and
interest in the other. This love has its basis in a sincere appreciation and
high regard for the other. In the plural
form, it refers to the love feast shared by the early church.
cara
(joy) refers to joy in something, gladness and the reason for it, even great
happiness. It refers to the cause or object of joy. It refers to a feeling of
inner happiness and delight.
Eirhnh
(peace) refers to peace and harmony. In terms of one's relationship with God,
it refers to inner rest and harmony, peace, freedom from anxiety. It can also
refer to a state of reconciliation with God, which is one of the fruits of the
Spirit. It refers to a set of favorable circumstances involving peace and
tranquility. Writers used it often in invocations and greetings, where it
corresponds to the Hebrew word shalom, health, welfare, and peace to you. It
refers to a state of peace, as an agreement between persons. When it refers to
the eschatological condition of the human race, it means salvation of humanity.
Makroqumia
(patience) is a state of emotional calm in the face of provocation or
misfortune and without complaint or irritation. It can mean a state of
emotional quietness in the face of unfavorable circumstances. As patience under
trial, it means endurance and steadfastness. As constraint exercised toward
others, it means forbearance and patience. As referring to constraint of the
wrath of God it means longsuffering and forbearance.
Crhstoth~
(kindness) as a gracious attitude it means goodness, goodness of heart,
benevolence, kindness, mercy, and as moral integrity, it means uprightness and
honesty. It refers to an event or activity that is useful or benevolent, that
which is useful or benevolent. It often means, "To help." That which
is useful becomes that which helps people or that which proves good for people.
Agaqwsunh
(generosity) refers to positive moral qualities of a general nature like
goodness, kindness, and generosity. As a quality of moral excellence, it means
being good, goodness, and uprightness. As a quality of relationship with
others, it means willingness to give or share, generosity, and goodness.
Pisti~
(faithfulness) means belief directed toward a person or thing, such as
confidence, faith, trust, and reliance on. It also refers to what brings trust
and confidence from others, such as faithfulness, fidelity, and reliability. It
can also refer to what inspires confidence, as a pledge, means of proof, and
guarantee.
Praoth~
(gentleness) refers to a quality of gentle friendliness, meekness as a strength
that accommodates to the weakness of another, and considerateness. It can also
refer to humility. It means gentleness of attitude and behavior, in contrast
with harshness in one's dealings with others.
Egkrateia
(self-control) refers to mastery of oneself and self-control. It means
exercising complete control over one's desires and actions.
Tapeinofrosuna~
(humility) refers to a quality of voluntary submission and unselfishness as
humility and self-effacement. It refers to the quality of humility.
Oiktirmou (compassion) refers to a motivating emotion of sympathy, compassion, mercy, and pity. It means to show mercy and concern, with the implication of sensitivity and compassion.
Anecomenoi (Bear with one another) refers to being patient with each other, in the sense of enduring possible difficulty. It refers to exercising self-restraint and tolerance, enduring patiently, putting up with, and bearing with others.
Carizomenoi (forgive) refers to giving freely or graciously, grant as a favor. It can refer to a
wrong done by another with which one deals graciously, thus giving pardon and
forgiveness.
Upomonh
(endurance) refers to a basic attitude or frame of mind as patience,
steadfastness, adherence to a course of action in spite of difficulties and
testings, as in perseverance, endurance, and fortitude. It refers to a capacity
to continue to bear up under difficult circumstances.
Eusebeia
(godliness) refers to a manner of life characterized by reverence toward God
and respect for the beliefs and practices related religion and piety, and thus
piety, devout practice of obligations to the divine realm, and godly living.
Filadelfia
(brotherly love) refers to brotherly or sisterly love, and in particular,
affection for fellow believers.
Dokimhn
(character) refers to tested and tried character. Learning the genuineness of
something by examination and testing, often through actual use. It refers to
having the quality of having stood the test, a mature or approved character.
Romans 1:26-31 (NRSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NRSV)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NRSV)
9 Do you
not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
2 Corinthians 12:20-21 (NRSV)
20 For I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; I fear that there may perhaps be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. 21 I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced.
Galatians 5:19-21, 26 (NRSV)
19 Now the works of the
flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry,
sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21
envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as
I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the
Ephesians 4:17-19, 22 (NRSV)
17 Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. 19 They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 22 You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts,
Ephesians 4:25-31 (NRSV)
25 So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not make room for the devil. 28 Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. 29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. 31 Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice,
Ephesians 5:3-6 (NRSV)
3 But fornication and
impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is
proper among saints. 4 Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and
vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of
this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an
idolater), has any inheritance in the
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient.
Colossians 3:5, 8-9 (NRSV)
5 Put to
death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). 8 But now you must get
rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from
your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have
stripped off the old self with its practices
1 Timothy 1:9-11 (NRSV)
9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1 Timothy 6:3-5, 10 (NRSV)
3
Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our
Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, 4
is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for
controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension,
slander, base suspicions, 5 and wrangling among those who are
depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means
of gain. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,
and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and
pierced themselves with many pains.
2 Timothy 3:2-5 (NRSV)
2 For
people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant,
abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 inhuman,
implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, 4 treacherous,
reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5
holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid
them!
Titus 3:3 (NRSV)
3 For we
ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various
passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating
one another.
1 Peter 4:3 (NRSV)
3 You
have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in
licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry.
Romans
13 let us
live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in
debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy.
The
list of vice in the New Testament points to those behaviors that do not reflect
the grace and love of God in one’s life. The lists do not reflect formal law.
Rather, they reflect the interest of the New Testament in the formation of
character.
Abusive language
Adulteries
Anger
Boastful
Carousing
Cowardly
Craftiness
Dissensions
Drunkenness
Enmities
Envy
Evil
Factions
Faithless
False witness
Foolish
Fornication
God haters
Gossips
Greed
Guile
Haughty
Heartless
Idolatry
Impurity
Insecurity
Insolent
Inventors of evil
Jealousy
Liars
Licentiousness
Male prostitutes (malakoi)
Malice
Mischief maker
Murder
Polluted
Quarrels
Rebellious toward
parents
Revels
Revilers
Robbers
Ruthless
Silly talk
Slander
Sodomites arsenokoitai
Sorcery
Strife
Thieves
Vulgar talk
Wickedness
We need to consider
the moral dimension of the language of obligation. Lists of vices and virtues
were common in the Greek and Roman culture, and the Christian list is not
distinctive in this regard. The lists of Paul are not typically in a specific
theological context. In the development of such lists, the danger already
exists for branding outsiders as evil and insiders as holy. It was easy for
Christians in the second century to develop the notion of the two paths, one of
vice and the other virtue. Generally, the New Testament frames these lists in
simple rule language, a direct imperative expressing actions one should imitate
or avoid. However, the theological context of the offensive crucifixion of the
Son of God and the resurrection of Jesus by God became a metaphor of patient
transformation. It became a pattern by which a way of life, a claim of
authority, an assertion of value. The honor that counts is that received at the
end of age from God, rather than the honor that comes from the present age that
passes away. As a result, the virtue of humility experienced transformation in
Christian hands. The offense of the cross brought humility in the context of
the world. The pervasive norms of honor and shame, norms determinative of a
well-lived life, undergo some transformation in Christian community.
Further, Christian ethical reflection has some general considerations for any culture in which it finds itself. The basis of this reflection is the future reign of God. All human institutions are relative and thus not the focus of Christian activity as if one’s hope is only for this world. However, where culture is open to influence from the church, the bible gives some guidance as to the direction should take. Since Christians share the common lot of humanity, they have concerns and perspectives that may assist society in making crucial choices about our life together.
As believers, we know we need Christ. Yet, we do not know how to bring him into society. We need Christ to help us do the things that vision and good will urge upon us. We find it difficult to take even the shortest step with Christ into society. We do not want to admit that the idea of an independent culture, nation, and economic life, for it could lead to exploitation. Some Christians so readily see a society transformed by Christ. They want to renew the culture in Christ. Many liberal Christians find the reign of God in any new movement for social change. Both perspectives want to use the thought-forms of Jesus as the law for every economic, racial, national and international order. We may feel tired of a secular culture. However, our being tired of it does not make it go away. It remains an independent culture.
First, Jesus and Paul do not show great interest in changing oppressive social institutions for two reasons. One is the soon appearance of the reign of God, and the other is the aggressive and hostile environment in which they lived. For that reason, their lack of interest in changing social institutions was the result of context, and is not normative.
The
lack of involvement by Jesus and the early church in political life gives some
support to the political conservative.
The political liberal points out that the Old Testament prophets and
their judgment upon wealth and favoritism toward the poor for support. They also point to the “principalities and
powers” that Paul mentions as if they are political powers. I have also seen political interpretations of
the Book of Revelation that suggest that
For this reason, Christians have always found more support for political engagement in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. Yet, this prophetic emphasis has as its context a unity of religion, life, and cultural institutions that modernity does not possess. The prophets stood alone before the ruler, not seeking personal gain or political power to put into effect their declaration of the word of God. When churches imitate prophetic pronouncements, they have the ring of the inauthentic because the cultural distance is so profound. Modern political pronouncements need to have a foundation in secular knowledge of the political order, economic life, civic life, and family life. It makes a difference if such knowledge serves an ideology of nationalism, Marxism, democratic pluralism, and so on. Different philosophies will select different aspects of the evidence. Theological contributions to such debates cannot apply Old Testament prophecy directly. Jesus viewed himself as the end of prophecy, in that the prophets point to John the Baptist, suggesting that Jesus ended that phase of the movement of the Spirit of God. Christianity replaces prophetic proclamation with the life and history of Jesus. Prophecy finds its fulfillment in Jesus, as does Torah.
Colossians 3:18-4:1 (NRSV)
18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.
20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is your acceptable duty in the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, or they may lose heart. 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, 24 since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality. 1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Ephesians 5:21-6:9 (NRSV)
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—this is the first commandment with a promise: 3 “so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
9 And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NRSV)
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.
1 Peter 2:18-3:7 (NRSV)
18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; 4 rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight. 5 It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. 6 Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you.
7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.
These household rules are simple in how husband and wife, parent and child, master and slave, are to relate to each other. The point Paul makes is that those in power within the hierarchy are to use their power softly, out of care and concern for those whom they influence. I grant that I would like for Jesus and for Paul to give a rule that slavery wrong. Neither does so, although one could argue that if masters treated slaves as Paul recommends, the result would be the eradication of slavery.
Such passages puzzle us in certain ways. Although I think I can put together some of the pieces by understanding the textual and historical context, I cannot remove the puzzle entirely. Paul was not an Enlightenment thinker. He was a person of his time and his culture. The household had a definite structure with the male head at the top of the hierarchy, wife, children, slaves, and sometimes even businesses somewhat indebted to the household. I do not find that isolating these passages from the rest of the canon particular helpful. We will need to consider the dialogue within the canon on these matters in order to discern the direction of the canonical dialogue. The place of women in the canon strikes us in light of the social context. Mary Magdalene is a faithful witness to the risen Lord, an apostolic task. Mary sits at the fit of Jesus to learn from him as if in the position of a disciple. The prophecy of Joel that the Spirit will fall upon sons and daughters in the last days receives fulfillment at Pentecost. Paul apparently had females enlisted in ministry. We can also consider such passages as this:
Galatians 3:26-28 (NRSV)
26 for in
Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many
of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there
is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
What we find is a tension in the tradition between the hierarchical social institution of the household and the egalitarian vision of baptism and salvation. The counsel for wives to submit, for children to obey, and for slaves to obey, was not radical or revolutionary. One expects such counsel. It may well be that Paul needed to assert this truisms because of hopes raised by an egalitarian message. In any case, what is revolutionary for his time was to counsel those in authority within the household to use their authority softly, graciously, and gently.
This concern for the abuse of power within a hierarchical arrangement is one that, I suspect, has normative significance for all cultures and periods. The point is that hierarchy exists everywhere animals and mammals exist, and that includes humanity. We are at the top in some settings, in the middle in some others, and at the bottom in others. If one is at the bottom, Paul suggests, be agreeable and compliant. If one is at the top, be gracious and gentle. The motive for his counsel is the abuse of power by husbands. Paul strikingly recommends a course for the Christian household that limits the power and authority of the husband. The point is that if husbands actually did what Paul recommends, the traditional hierarchy breaks down. Combined with the egalitarian vision of Paul in salvation, the thrust of this discussion is that approaching hierarchy this way removes the normal barriers between classes and opens people to relationships in which the worth and dignity of individuals finds recognition, no matter where they are in the hierarchy. My point is that I doubt if anyone can figure out how to remove the hierarchy, for such systems of authority appear across cultures and species. However, Paul recommends a porous separation, one in which individuality finds recognition by those in authority. The vision in Galatians 3 has social implications in that Jew and Gentile experience the same baptism and partake of the same food and drink. Paul makes it clear that his vision includes table fellowship between Jew and Gentile, breaking down class, ethnic, and religious distinctions.
The Old Testament has many “You shall not” statements. From our perspective, it would be nice if it also said, “You shall not own slaves.” The New Testament urges masters to be good owners of slaves, and to urges slaves to be good slaves. Paul gives this counsel because the time is so short between now and when Christ returns, that we must not make any effort to change the institution of slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NRSV)
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Deuteronomy 20:10-11 (NRSV)
10 When
you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If
it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it
shall serve you at forced labor.
2 Samuel 8:2 (NRSV)
2 He also defeated the Moabites and, making them lie down on the ground, measured them off with a cord; he measured two lengths of cord for those who were to be put to death, and one length for those who were to be spared. And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.
2 Samuel
31 He brought out the
people who were in it, and set them to work with saws and iron picks and iron
axes, or sent them to the brickworks. Thus he did to all the cities of the
Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to
Old Testament legislation encouraged
humane treatment of slaves.
However,
as we entered the 1700’s and 1800’s, good Christians argued that slavery was a
sin. In the 1840’s, a group of
Methodists in American broke away to form the
Third, the bible is clear that God calls us toward generosity and compassion toward the poor. We need to consider seriously the role of wealth in the context of Christian ethics. The shape this vision takes in modernity is open for debate, but the objective in terms of church social policy is clear.
I want to state a puzzle for me at the beginning of this discussion. The many references to the Old Testament prophets some theologians use in relation to the social implications of Christian teaching has several drawbacks. One is that the prophets never proclaimed their word from God while at the same time entering into strategy to carry it out politically. Many theologians and churches enter into political power politics as if they are another special interest group. Two is that the prophets spoke in the context of the Mosaic and David covenants. To my knowledge, no one has claimed such context for the modern social world in which we live. Three is that Jesus declared the end of Torah and prophets with John the Baptist, and those who follow Jesus need to take that seriously.
From a domestic policy perspective, modern persons live in a society in which freedom for individuals is a major theme, and in which the government recognizes that the rights of individuals is prior to the state and therefore deserve recognition by the state. Consequently, I find it puzzling that many churches, especially mainline protestant denominations, seem to adopt a policy of coercion and force to implement their vision. My point here is that tax policy is coercion, in that if one does not pay the tax, one is in jail. Tax policy does not encourage compassion or respect for others. Rather, it encourages resentment.
The point I want to make in this section is that in the important matter of possessing material wealth, the biblical value we might state like this: have compassion and generosity toward all persons, but especially those not providing for themselves. In the rest of this section, I want to make this value clear. However, I do not want to get into the matter of the differences between the political parties. No matter what political commitments one has, this is an important value to cultivate in society. My own view is that in a modern society, in which civil society has so much freedom and voluntary association, and over which the state has little control, we best cultivate and demonstrate the values of compassion and generosity through civil society. The reason for this is that civil society recognizes the rights of individuals and invites participation, whereas government coerces participation. Frankly, the church needs to cultivate its own example of being a compassionate and generous institution. The integrity of the church is in question, as it pays for salaries and office space for people to tell the government to increase tax policy, when the church itself is a wealthy institution that must maintain itself. I have wondered what would happen if the many bureaucracies of the church engaged in compassionate ministries in their neighborhoods the kind of social change that could result. The point is that the example of the life of the church is more significant than policy pronouncements that serve primarily special political interests and usually alienate other good Christians. The church cannot put on the mantle of being prophetic when it promotes the use of power to adopt its ends. The church needs to be quite careful in placing itself on the side of coercion, even if it is for a good cause.
Paul
Ramsey makes the mistake of applying prophetic statements about justice, given
to the specific conditions existing in
Jeremiah 22:3 (NRSV)
3 Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place.
Jeremiah 22:15-16 (NRSV)
15 Are you a king
because you compete in cedar?
Did not your father eat and drink
and do justice and righteousness?
Then it was well with him.
16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy;
then it was well.
Is not this to know me?
says the Lord.
Micah 6:8 (NRSV)
8 He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Amos
24 But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Psalm 72:1-4 (NRSV)
1 Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people,
and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor.
Psalm 82:3-4 (NRSV)
3 Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Deuteronomy 1:16-17 (NRSV)
16 I charged your judges at that time: “Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien. 17 You must not be partial in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. Any case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it.”
Isaiah 11:3-4 (NRSV)
3 His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
Job 31 (NRSV) – selected verses
13 “If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves,
when they brought a complaint against me;
14 what then shall I do when God rises up?
When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?
16 “If I have withheld anything that the poor desired,
or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail,
17 or have eaten my morsel alone,
and the orphan has not eaten from it—
19 if I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing,
or a poor person without covering,
20 whose loins have not blessed me,
and who was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;
21 if I have raised my hand against the orphan,
because I saw I had supporters at the gate;
22 then let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder,
and let my arm be broken from its socket.
29 “If I have rejoiced at the ruin of those who hated me,
or exulted when evil overtook them—
31 if those of my tent ever said,
‘O that we might be sated with his flesh!’ —
32 the stranger has not lodged in the street;
I have opened my doors to the traveler—
35 O that I had one to hear me!
(Here is my signature! Let the Almighty answer me!)
O that I had the indictment written by my adversary!
Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel movement presented a one-sided and narrow view of capitalism and promoted socialism, as if the Hebrew prophets and Jesus himself were the foundation for his dream of Christianizing the social order.
Walter
Rauschenbusch wonders what light the prophets who tended sheep in
“Your hands are full of blood. Wash you! Make you clean! put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes! Cease to do evil! Learn to do right! Seek justice! Relive the oppressed! Secure justice for the orphaned and plead for the widow.”
Another prophet who addresses such matters is Micah:
“Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with claves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shown thee, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
Amos and Jeremiah even tried to cut
away the foundation of antiquity on which the sacrificial system rested, by
denying that God had commanded sacrifices at all when he constituted the nation
after the exodus from
For
him, progress is not just a natural thing; it is divine. The most persistent
obstacle of progress is the conservative stupidity and stolidity of human
nature. The chief purpose of the Christian church in the past has been the
salvation of individuals. The Christian Church in the past has taught us to do
our work with our eyes fixed on another world and a life to come. However, the
business before us is concerned with refashioning this present world, making
this earth clean, sweet, and habitable. After all, the desire for rest in
heaven is not the social of hope of the reign of God on earth with which
Christianity set out. The atmosphere of detachment from this world and of
longing for death is not the atmosphere in which Jesus lived in
I am sure that for some, this use of the biblical text is convincing. I find it interesting that many persons of liberal or liberation political leanings will adopt a Biblicist approach to these Old Testament texts, while rightly rejecting such Biblicist approaches in other areas of the text. I want to take the risk of proposing a different approach. Those who adopt a Biblicist approach with these texts will undoubtedly consider that my proposal is out of defense of my present social and economic position. I can only assure the reader that I want to be consistent in my use of the biblical text as a resource for Christian ethical reflection. For me, that means taking seriously the specific situation to which the biblical text addresses, and then considering the normative value of the text.
The cultural context of the prophetic concern for justice lays in the abuse of power by kings, who receive their office by hereditary right. The prophet himself sought no power in society, a fact lost on the Social Gospel Movement and its quest to Christianize the social order through gaining political power. Given the emphasis of the Old Testament on covenant, the king has obligations to fulfill his part of the covenant to God and to the people. Most of the people are poor because of the economic system that keeps them poor. The system allowed little room for advancement in any modern sense of that term. As modern persons looking back, we can see the deficiency of freedom that pre-modern societies took for granted. We can also see the endless oppression due to the lack of respect for the rights of individuals that seems part of their way of life. The prophets and the Torah unite at the point of demonstrating the concern God has for the abuse of power and wealth at the expense of the masses. However, we also note several other rather conservative trends. The prophets do not call for the overthrow of the office of king or priest. With all of their concern for justice and the warning of judgment if the king fails, the prophets do not have a specific economic, social, or economic agenda other than faithfulness to the covenant. The prophets never sought political or economic gain for themselves. Although the Law demonstrates compassion toward women and slaves, neither the Law nor the prophets call for outlawing slavery or the elevation of the social position of women.
The teaching of Jesus concerning matters of wealth has several interesting dimensions to it. One reminder modern persons need is the theological and social context. Theologically, Jesus anticipated the soon arrival of the rule of God on the earth. God would soon arrive to set matters right with the world. Many of his remarks and parables reflect this perspective. Further, he lived in an occupied land, in which the Roman government and military had a dominant and visible presence. The word and deed of Jesus reflect the harsh realities of such social life.
As part of his ethical instruction, Jesus adopted a casual approach to economics, thereby refusing to become indebted to the economic and political system of his day. By not feeling the need to protect what they had, Jesus took every material means of manipulating and imposing oneself on Jesus and his first followers out of their enemies' hands. Such injunctions as follows were smart moves under the circumstances. Such counsel is a subversive wisdom. Such a deviation from established patterns in society is an attempt to upset the social order or disorder created by these patterns of both thought and action.
The social situation in which Jesus found himself suggested a relaxed attitude toward wealth. The governing class, for example, was one percent of the population but received 25% of the national income. The retainer class averaged around 5% of the population and ranged from scribes and bureaucrats to soldiers and generals. Their function was to serve the political elite. The upper classes viewed the peasant classes with suspicion, largely because the upper classes allowed them to have the necessities of life, and that was all. With necessities provided, this large class, comprising as much as 65% of the population, would not rebel. The society vested economic and political power in about 6% of the population. There was little hope of moving into that elite. Normally one was born into it. Thus, what Jesus said and did in regard to wealth was a form of resistance to the dominant social institutions of the day. Jesus and his followers are not indebted to this world, opening the possibility of normally inconceivable options for dealing with evil and injustice that the Jewish people faced.
"Give to everyone who begs from you..." (Q 6:30) is a rule that if followed would lead to impoverishment. Sparrows are cared for by God, people are worth far more than they (Q12:6).
Luke 12:6 (NRSV)
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight.
"Don't fret about life."
God provides for the birds. God takes
care of nature. So will you be provided
for (Q l2:22-28). Philippians (60-62 from a prison in
Luke 12:22-28 (NRSV)
22 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! 25 And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 26 If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 28 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!
The burden of wealth ought not to
afflict the followers of Jesus at all.
"Sell your belongings, and donate to charity..." (Q
12:33). Wealth gets in the way of
serving God totally: "No servant can be a slave to two masters. No doubt that slave will either hate one and
love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't be enslaved to God and a bank
account" (Q
Luke 16:19-26 (NRSV)
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. 24 He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’
A rich person often thinks only of
themselves, and rarely of their eternal destiny (Th. 63:1-3, Lk
Luke 12:16-21 (NRSV)
16 “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. 17 And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ 20 But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”
Further, "How difficult it is
for those who have money to enter the
Jesus
has this relaxed this attitude toward wealth because his own vision of
happiness is not placed in the economic hierarchical system created by Roman
civic action. Rather, "Whoever
tries to hang on to life will forfeit it, but whoever forfeits life will
preserve it" (Q
We
need to balance this attitude toward wealth with the many images that Jesus
used from the business world of his day.
The merchant class, though it could gain enough to wealth to gain a
moderate degree of power, in general was only slightly wealthier than the
peasant was. This was the one path for
the peasant to get out of subsistence living.
They confronted the upper classes because of the market rather than
politics or the military. For example, A
wealthy person invites people to his dinner party, but is turned down, so
others are "forced" to come in so that the house will be filled (Q
14:16-23). A wealthy man leaves three
slaves in charge of money, two of whom invest their money, and of whom buries
it (Qm 25:14-27). A wealthy man gives
the younger son his inheritance long before he was required to (Lk
Fourth, the bible and dimensions of Christian tradition are clear that peace and justice are important ends. We need to give careful consideration here to pacifism, for if non-violence ultimately leads to the reduction of justice and to lack of peace, the church could not legitimately be church and follow such a strategy.
For some, the counsels of Jesus toward non-violence represents a universally binding law upon Christian life. Further, the cross is the greatest symbol of non-violence in the world, and becomes a symbol of Christian involvement in the world.
One reminder modern persons need is the theological and social context. Theologically, Jesus anticipated the soon arrival of the rule of God on the earth. God would soon arrive to set matters right with the world. Many of his remarks and parables reflect this perspective. Further, he lived in an occupied land, in which the Roman government and military had a dominant and visible presence.
The
movement of zealots wanted Jews to unite in their opposition to
All of this suggests the wisdom of Jesus concerning Roman occupation had some validity.
At the same time, one can hardly deny the peaceful life that Jesus intends his followers to embody in their life together. One can also hardly deny that Jesus did not have that experience with his disciples, and that the church did not experience such peace after Pentecost.
First, we
need to discuss the ambiguities of Christian sources. This requires us to
consider the tensions in the canon concerning war and peace.
“Thou shall
not kill”: one of the simple, direct commandments that points to life. Yet,
most of us assume that we have a right to self-defense. God commands
Of course,
some of us think we can ignore such passages, since they are in the Old
Testament. Jesus had no basis for political, economic, or military power. His counsel recognized that it was important
to keep opponents off guard.
He
encouraged the people to comply with the Romans:
Mk
He
encouraged his followers to love enemies (Q
Matthew
39 But I say to you, Do not
resist an evildoer.
Matthew
41 and if anyone forces you
to go one mile, go also the second mile.
Matthew 18:23-34 (NRSV)
23 “For this reason the
kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with
his slaves. 24 When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten
thousand talents was brought to him; 25 and, as he could not pay,
his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all
his possessions, and payment to be made. 26 So the slave fell on his
knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you
everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave
released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same slave, as he
went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii;
and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 Then
his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I
will pay you.’ 30 But he refused; then he went and threw him into
prison until he would pay the debt. 31 When his fellow slaves saw
what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to
their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him
and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you
pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow
slave, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord handed him
over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.
We also read
Paul, as he writes about political authority having the power of the sword in
order to punish evil.[1]
Let every person be subject to the
governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those
authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore
whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist
will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct,
but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good,
and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for
your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority
does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on
the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of
wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also
pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7
Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom
revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Some people place Jesus and Paul against each other at this
point. Yet, both the gospels and the letters of Paul are part of the text that
forms of the life of the church and Christian reflection. Jesus used the
strategy of non-violence because it was the most effective strategy of
opposition to a corrupt and oppressive Roman system. If one examines the
history of First Century AD Israel, one can see that the strategy of rebellion and
confrontation did not work. It simply led to further violence. Further, people
who opted for personal piety as a shield from social forces, people who opted
for accommodation to the oppressive system, all found their spiritual lives
compromised. We need to remember that the New Testament is not a political
document. It does not lay out a political strategy required for every time,
place, and culture. The same is true for the strategy of non-violence.
Non-violence is not a moral absolute. Christians should use non-violence as
long as it is an effective strategy for accomplishing worthy ends. Christians
do not have to impose a political, economic, or religious structure upon people
as they enter new cultures.
Peaceful
ways of relating to each other and to the world are important for the church to
make its witness known in the world.
We need to consider seriously the social context of the New Testament as we consider non-violence. The hostile social environment did not allow for participation in the power structures of Roman or Jewish culture. The result was the New Testament unanimously considered the world institutions as passing away, and therefore devoted themselves to the areas of life they could influence. They focused on relating people to the future rule of God in Jesus Christ. This indifference to social institutions was a pragmatic concern in that needed to do the best they could to get along with society and their neighbors or suffer persecution and death.
The
open question for the New Testament is how things would change if non-violence
led to more death, destruction, and injustice.
Dealing
with controversial ethical matters is never easy. What I would like to do is
consider some controversial and divisive issues the church faces today in light
of what I have described as values and ethics central to the New Testament. I
want to consider whether this ancient text has some wisdom to offer people
living in a modern world.
When we
consider controversial matters in the context of the church, we need to
consider carefully the way we deal with the bible and the tradition of the
church. I want discuss this matter briefly.
I would
suggest that we find dialogue within the canon on other matters. Jesus clearly
pointed the way to a form of Judaism that made the Torah relative to the soon
coming rule of God, liberated the people of covenant from the Land, and
envisioned Judaism without the
The matter
of circumcision was not an easy theological and social issue for the apostolic
church. They needed a church council in
This
dialogical approach to the canon recognizes a variety of voices within the
canon, and the responsibility of the reader to discern the direction God is
moving this dialogue. The tension exists, but so does a trajectory or direction
exist. My assumption is that as canon, God is the moving canonical conversation
a certain direction.
Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.
Philippians 4:8 (NRSV) whatever is honorable … whatever
is pure,
Agna
(pure) refers to being without moral defect, and therefore pure, chaste,
upright, innocent, often in the sense of being without intent to do wrong in a
matter, and thus harmless and acceptable behavior.
Oiktirmou (compassion) refers to a motivating emotion of sympathy, compassion, mercy, and pity. It means to show mercy and concern, with the implication of sensitivity and compassion.
Agaph
(love) refers to an attitude of appreciating resulting from a conscious
evaluation and choice. It refers to love and devotion. It refers to concern and
interest in the other. This love has its basis in a sincere appreciation and
high regard for the other. In the plural
form, it refers to the love feast shared by the early church.
Adulteries
Fornication
Impurity
Licentiousness
Male prostitutes (malakoi)
Murder
Sodomites arsenokoitai
My concern
in this brief segment is to offer wisdom from the bible concerning abortion, a
matter that the bible did not face in the way that modern persons must face it.
However, since it is so controversial and a matter puzzling to Christians, I
would like to suggest a few reflections.
A rule
oriented approach to the bible is not helpful as we consider the passage from
Exodus. The natural approach to this text is that the Old Testament, in this
particular case, makes a distinction between killing the fetus and killing an
adult. On this basis, one could legitimately argue for some sort of distinction
today. With increasing technology, it does not answer the question of that
distinction.
Second, I
suggest that one element of the abortion question is the proper expression of
our love for another human being. The church begins with certain assumptions,
among them being faithful and loving relationships between a man and a woman is
the proper context for marriage. The bible places a limit on the expression of
sexual love. The counsel of the bible at this point has the confirmation of
many years of experience. The ability to remain faithful in the intimate
relationship of marriage and family is an important indication of the kind of
character one has developed. The willingness to do lie, sneak around, keep
secrets, and break a promise to another human being, also reflect matters of
character. The preservation of one’s body sexually for one to whom one willingly
commits one’s life also reflects recognition of the intimacy of the sexual act.
The emotional and physical bond that can occur in expressing one’s love
sexually toward another is one that needs careful consideration. In any case,
the bible appears to give a clear “no” to expressing sexually one’s love
outside the context of the relationship of husband and wife. I recognize that
technology has made it more likely today that one can have sex without the
result of children. I would invite you to consider, however, that other matters
still make the wisdom of the bible on this matter quite sound. The result of
such a decision by more people would mean fewer abortions.
Third, I
would like to offer the wisdom that basic respect for life, leading a non-violent
life, leading a life of compassion and love toward the other, is at stake in
the matter of abortion. In saying this, I do not particularly want to deal with
the matter of personhood. I have not noticed that people are even persuadable
on this matter. However, technology has helped us to determine that
specifically human life begins when syngamy occurs, meaning egg and sperm unite
in such a way that the chromosomes of male and female unite. This occurs at
about 24 hours after fertilization. These DNA strands determine species
specific character of this new life. Further, the fetus registers pain at about
11 weeks. Clearly, the elements of what we typically think of as person are not
present. The fetus does not experience pain until about 11 weeks. As far as we
know, several activities of persons do not occur until one is out of the womb.
For example, reasoning does not occur until one is out of the womb. One is not
aware of external objects or aware of oneself. One slowly develops the ability
to behave in ways not determined by genetic code. One needs to have the ability
to communicate on a number of different topics. The question is whether the
beginning of human life makes it sufficient in our minds that person exists
potentially, and therefore deserves our protection.
Technology has also provided us with the opportunity to know if the fetus will produce a healthy human being. Christians must also face the matter of rape and incest and the possible children that would result. It will not surprise anyone who has read this far that I am unwilling to make a rule. Rather, I am more interested in character, and then, faced with such boundary situations, trust them to do the right thing.
I have a suggestion. Less
drastic solutions are available to people than abortion. I would encourage
Christians who face such decisions to consider seriously seeking those
solutions. The fetus had no choice in its conception or in its DNA strands that
will set many of the conditions the fetus will have as a human life. Males and
females can choose to abstain from sex. One can use contraception. Given the
conception of the child, and given discomfort of the biological parents to
raise the child, the option of adoption exists. The fetus is the innocent one
in the equation.
I have
stayed away from the political debate. I find it rather ridiculous that some
who oppose abortion will do violence to those doctors and nurses who do the
procedure. The inconsistency in respect for life is large. Further, I do not
find it helpful to the witness of the church to have Christians protesting
outside places that permit abortion. Too often, such demonstrations reflect
hatred toward the medical persons and hatred toward those having those having
the procedure. These persons are our neighbors. There are other ways to
demonstrate genuine Christian caring for both the life of the parents and the
fetus. In addition, I have great hesitation to use the power of the political
state to enforce a Christian understanding of respect for life. It brings the
church into the matter of power politics and special interest groups in
I am not
comfortable with how mainline churches have carried on the conversation
concerning sexual orientation. We pigeon hold each other so quickly. What I
would like to grant to both sides of the matter of whether homosexual practice
is consistent with Christian teaching is that both sides have concern for and
love for those who engage in the practice.
Among my
many hesitations on this topic is that I think the church should be a place
where are all persons are welcome. In particular, persons in any community who
experience for alienation for any reason, including sexual preference, are
still persons of sacred worth and dignity. They are persons whom God loves. The
church needs to reflect the love God has for the world. All too often, the
church has given the impression that it views itself as holier than others are.
If any community of persons ought to recognize the profound depths of sin in us
all, it is the people of the church. Whether one views same sex relationships
as acceptable Christian behavior or not, we ought to agree on the need for the
church to open its doors and its heart. To my knowledge, the bible does not
call upon Christians to love their neighbors only if they qualify. The call is
love, and therefore to regard our neighbors as persons of worth and dignity, as
persons of sacred worth, as children of God.
At the same time, I identify with the church in this struggle. As far as I can tell, Christians generally unite on matters of personal morality. Our disagreements over matters like length of hair, whether women should wear genes, smoking, drinking, television in the home, eating in places that serve alcohol, going to movies, and so on, caused vigorous debate in some circles. However, none of these matters could go back to specific prohibitions in the bible. Everyone tacitly recognized the attempt to interpret biblical principles and values. Consequently, the present situation of the church introduces yet another wedge issue for Christians. Instead of dividing over matters related to baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christology, and church government, the churches could potentially divide over the matter of whether one can express his or her same-sex sexual orientation in the context of the fullness of Christian life and character. The person who says no believes that the homosexual act, by its nature, is an unjust and unloving act; everything we know about Christian values and behavior prohibits it.
For
example, the
Part of
what I show in the rest of this section is that another important dimension of
this struggle in the church is that it calls into question an explicit
statement of New Testament ethic or value. That being the case, the veracity of
the biblical text becomes an issue. The “no” that the New Testament gives to
this expression of our sexuality suggests that the New Testament considers it
impossible to engage in the behavior with the blessing of God or the church. If
the church can set aside a value like this, it suggests the New Testament is
not accurate in addressing matters related to human hopes and dreams. While
many of us can live with the antiquated science, politics, and economics of the
bible, and while many can live with historical error, when it comes to matters
of explicit statement of values like this, we draw back.
Well, let
us take the plunge into this puzzle of the modern church. I invite you to
explore the matter with something of an open mind and heart. If you disagree,
please know that I do not write you out of the church or out of fellowship in
eternity. My claim is that the biblical text and the Christian tradition concur
that the practice of homosexuality is not the ideal expression of Christian
spirituality and ethical norms in the matter of human sexuality. The concern in
the bible and Christian tradition is for the attainment of the best human life
as individuals and the best form of family life.
I need to
take a moment and refer to the texts that refer to homosexual practice. What I
have to share here is an attempt to move us toward understanding the biblical
text.
To begin, I
emphasize that the bible has an extensive dialogue within it about the way we
express sexual desire. The bible and the tradition of the church are quite
clear that one can express the love one has for another human being in ways
that express the perversion of our human nature rather than express our
individual worth and dignity as well as the dignity of another. Any reading of
Old Testament convinces us that impurity can suddenly come upon any of us, but
especially women, and especially in matters related to sexuality. Many of these
laws reveal gender bias from our perspective. Such concern for right ordering
has a broader basis than the priestly class, given the concern for sexual
expression in the J and E document. However, rejection of the prostitution
accepted in the worship of Canaanite deities and rejection of prostitution in
general suggest the wide spread acceptance of these practices.
Genesis
18:16-19:38 does give our language the term “sodomy.” It is an offensive term
for anal sex, and even a term applied to sex with animals. It comes from a
Latin word that simply means, “The sin of
Genesis 19:5-11 (NRSV)
5 and they called to
2 Peter 2:6-10 (NRSV)
6 and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by their lawless deeds that he saw and heard), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment 10 —especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority.
Bold and willful, they are not afraid to slander the glorious ones,
Jude 7 (NRSV)
7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
A form of sexual depravity is a
concern in these texts. E. A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible refers to this
possibility. I also have no problem with the suggestion of von Rad that it
refers to breaking hospitality customs at
The
Holiness Code of Leviticus 17-26 is an ancient text from
The code
begins with offering with sacrifices. It makes it clear that since the life is
in the blood, one ought not eat the blood. It has concern for sexuality in the
context of the family, with members of one’s immediate family and with the
extended family. Then it has an interesting paragraph:
Leviticus 18:19-23 (NRSV)
19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20 You shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman’s wife, and defile yourself with her. 21 You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.
The text goes on to suggest that everything just written is
an abomination and pollutes the
The code
goes on to command respect to parents, keeping Sabbath, nor worshipping idols,
and not making images. They are to eat their whole sacrifice of well-being on
the same day. They are to care for the poor by not harvesting the field to the
edges so that the poor may gather some of the fruit of the land. They shall not
stead, deal falsely, or lie. They shall not swear falsely or use the name of
the Lord in a profane way. They shall not defraud or steal, and shall pay daily
wages. They shall not treat the deaf or blind with contempt. They shall render
just judgment and not favor the poor over the rich. They shall not slander
others. They are not hate in their hearts a member of the family. They are to
correct their neighbor when needed. They shall not love their neighbor as
themselves. They are to breed their animals in the right way.
The code
comes back to sexuality, only this time between a man and his female slave.
They are not to eat the fruit of the land for three years. They are not to
practice augury or witchcraft. They shall cut their hair properly. They shall
not mark their bodies. Back to sexuality, they shall not allow daughters to
become prostitutes. They are not to turn to mediums or wizards. They are to
respect the aged. They shall not oppress the foreigner. They shall not cheat in
business. They shall not offer their children for sacrifice to God. Back to
sexuality, they are not to commit adultery under penalty of death, a man is not
to have sex with his mother or mother-in-law, or sister. Here is an interesting
paragraph:
Leviticus 20:10-16 (NRSV)
10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion, their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
The text continues with a description of the holiness of
priests. It also prescribes what constitutes an acceptable offering, making it
clear that the priest has the power to declare an offering acceptable or
unacceptable. It describes festivals for the Sabbath, Passover, and Unleavened
Bread. It describes offering of first fruits. It describes the festival of
weeks and the festival of trumpets. It describes the Day of Atonement and the
festival of booths. It describes various sacred objects: lamp and bread of the
tabernacle. We also find an unusual story in which they took one who blasphemed
Moses outside the camp and stoned him to death. It then added these brief laws:
Leviticus 24:17-21 (NRSV)
17 Anyone
who kills a human being shall be put to death. 18 Anyone who kills
an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. 19 Anyone
who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20 fracture
for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury
to be suffered. 21 One who kills an animal shall make restitution
for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.
It institutes the sabbatical year, in which the law repealed
debts garnered during the previous six. The Holiness Code concludes with a list
of rewards and punishments for the nation, depending on whether they keep the
commandments or disobey them.
Most
scholars agree that the statements “You shall not …” have a special place in
the sense that their form suggests a boundary beyond which the people of the
covenant are to cross. Here are such statements related to sexuality.
Chapter 18
None of you shall
approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the Lord.
7
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the
nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her
nakedness.
8
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the
nakedness of your father.
9
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s
daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad.
10 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s
daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
11 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by
your father, since she is your sister.
12
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your
father’s flesh.
13 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your
mother’s flesh.
14 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall
not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s
wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 You
shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s
nakedness.
17
You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you
shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter
to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is
depravity.
18 And
you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister,
uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
19
You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in
her menstrual uncleanness.
20 You
shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman’s wife, and defile yourself
with her.
22 You
shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
23 You
shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it,
nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it:
it is perversion.
Chapter 19
29 Do
not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, that the land not become
prostituted and full of depravity.
My suspicion is that such boundaries beyond which the people
of the covenant are not to cross contain commandments with which most of us are
quite comfortable. They represent proper boundaries of sexual behavior. We have
a problem with one, related to homosexual behavior, but we simply need to admit
that this prohibition creates a problem. I do not think explaining it away is
helpful to the biblical argument.
In fact, I
would consider the boundaries established by the other short, You shall not
statements represent some good guidelines of behavior.
Chapter 19
4 Do not turn to
idols or make cast images for yourselves: I am the Lord your God.
10 You shall not
strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you
shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
11 You
shall not steal;
you shall not deal
falsely;
and you shall not lie
to one another.
12 And
you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am
the Lord.
13
You shall not defraud your neighbor;
you shall not steal;
and you shall not
keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning.
14 You
shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind; you shall
fear your God: I am the Lord.
15
You shall not render an unjust judgment;
you shall not be
partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your
neighbor.
16 You
shall not go around as a slanderer among your people,
and you shall not
profit by the blood of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
17
You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin;
18 You
shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you
shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
26 You
shall not eat anything with its blood.
You shall not
practice augury or witchcraft.
27 You
shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.
28
You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any
marks upon you: I am the Lord.
35 You shall not
cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity.
I grant that verses 19:13c, 26a, 27, 28 appear to have a
cultural context modern people no longer share. I would not imagine that we
would have much problem with other prohibitions. The point is that this code
attempts to recognize boundaries between the behavior of the people of the
covenant and the behavior of neighbors. My further point is that many of these
boundaries, and in particular with sexuality, remains quite proper. These
prohibitions are not simply casuistic or legal. They are moral boundaries in
our relationship with people. They express a portion of the covenant
relationship people have with God and their covenant obligation toward each
other.
I realize
that in some places of biblical interpretation, one simply needs to admit
difference. What I would suggest, however, is that the boundaries of sexual
practice in this code are part of the continuing dialogue within the bible
about what is proper sexual expression within
The
Christian tradition has its roots in the strong Jewish opposition to this
practice. Wisdom of Solomon
I would now
like to consider the reference to Romans 1:18-32.
Romans 1:26-27 (NRSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Some persons argue that if a person honored God, they could
engage in same sex relationships and not fall under the judgment of Paul. We
may simply have to differ here. Paul assumes a volitional element to homosexual
practice. His reference to “natural” assumes the unnatural and disordered
nature of homosexual practice. Many modern persons would disagree with this
assessment, but we can agree that Paul gives a clear “no” to same sex unions.
What I see is that one of the consequences of failing to honor God is all kinds
of degrading passions, and homosexual expression is one among many:
Romans 1:29-31 (NRSV)
29 They
were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward
parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:9-10 are also
interesting verses:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NRSV)
9 Do you not know that
wrongdoers will not inherit the
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NRSV)
9 This
means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the
lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and
profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators,
sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to
the sound teaching
arsenokoi is a
word for which Arndt and Gingrich recommend “male homosexual, pederast,
sodomite” as translations. The Anchor
Bible translates as “male homosexual.” According to Louw-Nida Lexicon says arsenokoi is a male partner in homosexual intercourse
- 'homosexual.' It is possible that arsenokoi in certain contexts refers to the
active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakoi, the
passive male partner. The Freiberg Lexicon defines it as an adult male who
practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast. Our
language uses sodomy as an offensive term for anal sex, and even
a term applied to sex with animals. Our language uses pederast as a term for a
man who has sex with a boy. My understanding is that this form of sexual
expression did not include anal sex in the ancient Greek context. I share this
because the preponderance of scholarly study supports reference in these words
to same sex practice. Further, the caution is appropriate here as to the nature
of the act rejected by the bible. What our culture knows in terms of sexual
orientation is unknown to the New Testament authors.
As far as I can understand it, the behavior to
which Paul and the author of Timothy refer to is any kind of same sex contact.
The New Testament at that point is quite consistent with the Holiness Code and
with Jewish sexual practice. It also distinguishes Jewish and Christian sexual
behavior from Greek and Roman behavior, which accepted homosexual behavior
among bathhouses of the cities. Platonic dialogues assume the value of
philosophers having same sex relationships as a way of bonding males to each
other. The natural acceptance of this behavior was alive and well in
The
bible invites those who take it seriously to continue the conversation in many
matters of our ethics and values. Christians continued the dialogue on slavery,
and rightly concluded (finally) that the best situation was to prohibit
slavery, because as an institution it trended toward abusive relationships.
Many churches have re-thought the role of women in the ordained ministry of the
church on the same basis. A close examination of the biblical text on divorce
reveals a trend from absolute forbidding of divorce and remarriage and toward
affirmation of divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances, such as
adultery and an unbeliever leaving the believing spouse. The Christian
tradition continued to discuss the proper grounds for divorce, such as violence
done by one spouse to another, and so on. My point is that when the bible
initiates such a conversation within the text, it is quite appropriate for the
church to continue the conversation. My intention in sharing the examples of
divorce and remarriage after divorce is to suggest that the bible itself
carries on a dialogue about such matters. The early tradition of the church in
its ecumenical councils continued that conversation with the text. We need
discernment of the biblical text and the tradition of the church to continue
the conversation. The tradition has often considered this conversation and has
developed it on various topics, such as marriage as a partnership rather than
marriage as hierarchy and women in ministry. Further, we could also apply this
principle of conversation and moving beyond the biblical text to the modern
development of democratic institutions and the modern economic system of free
enterprise, both of which are contrary to the political and economic
assumptions of the bible.
What I found the most persuasive perspective
from which to understand sexuality in the bible and Christian tradition is to
view it as a concern for proper personal sexual expression and for the
preservation of the family. We have already noted that the reference in Genesis
is to male and female in sexual union. The theological references to God and
The struggle I have with the
biblical portion of the discussion on homosexual behavior as a Christian
expression of sexuality is that the bible does not have a dialogue about it.
The bible carries on a monologue about several matters concerning sexuality. It
forbids intercourse among close family members, with the spouse of a neighbor,
with animals, and it forbids same sex sexual relationships. It seems to me that
we need to be honest at that point. Such an observation does not end the
discussion. It does not necessarily determine what the church should do today.
If the church accepts homosexual behavior as a valid expression of sexuality,
it would have to do it on another basis than the biblical argument.
I would suggest that the bible is
cultural throughout, which is simply to say that human beings can only hear and
discern within space and time. The church is cultural throughout its history.
The formation of the canon was a theological process in which the church
considered that texts addressed to a specific time had normative significance
for the church. We search for timeless, eternal, absolute, and universal truth.
What we discover is that any truth we find has human boundaries with which to
contend. Human beings stand somewhere, and because of that, we always have a
perspective that determines what we see and do not see. We can see things only
from a human perspective, which means imperfectly and from personal and
cultural perspectives. The unity that the Holy Spirit provides over the ages is
an energy that we can trust to lead us. Whether the
We cannot carry the discussion
forward if we continue to divide over this matter. The church needs this
discussion for a simple reason. We need each other. People whom I know
reasonably well would disagree with my understanding of the biblical text. I
need conversation with them in the context of this denomination. We do not need
mainline denominations dividing over this matter. I urge those who want to
change this value of the New Testament and the church to re-consider their
drive toward division, schism, and sectarianism. This is a serious matter in
that you are asking the church to move against the view of Jesus on marriage
and Paul on the matter of vice and virtue. If the church needs to move this
direction, (clearly, I do not think so), it needs to do so as much as possible
in a conciliar way. This does not mean simply within a denomination, but in
conversation with other denominations with whom one has relation. We have had
denominational antagonism for too long. Even if Protestants do not have a pope
to decide these matters, we do have the choice to enter into dialogue with
other denominations who may disagree, and to have dialogue with global Christianity
in ways that can enrich each other. I cannot agree with the way the proponents
of this change have promoted their vision.
Peter J. Gomes, in The Good Book, 1996, has presented in
popular format the reasons why he believes the church needs to change its views
regarding homosexuality.
We must change our position on homosexuality if that
position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority
ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant
idolatry. Indeed, our core view of
sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s
call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic
and inclusive gospel.
What is at stake is not simply the authority of
scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say,
but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read
scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire
prejudices. Thus the battle for the
Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the
prevailing culture, of which the bible itself is a mere trophy and icon. Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would
rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than
concede that their self-serving reading of that scripture might just be wrong,
and that both the bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just,
and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.
The biblical writers never contemplated a form of
homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live
out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any
heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality
was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown
among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms
is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting now so much prejudice,
which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls “invincible
ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do
little to conceal. The “problem,” of
course, is not the bible, it is the Christians who read it.
I quote Rev. Gomes at length because
he represents the depths of sin to which the church has taken this
discussion. His book is quite readable
and, in most cases, excellent. He deals
more honestly than most pastors in discussing the place of the bible in the
formation of our beliefs. I am offended
by his description of me as having a “prejudicial and uninformed reading of
scripture.” His statement that I have “doctrinaire
prejudices” offends me. I do not want to
defend my ideology. Nor are my beliefs
simply a “self-serving reading of that scripture.” Further, we can all agree that the homosexual
is our neighbor, and that God calls us to love them and treat them justly. His reference to me as having “invincible
ignorance” is particularly offensive.
From one Christian to another, he tells me that I am the “problem,”
that, I assume, must go away in order for the church to advance.
My personalization of what Rev.
Gomes says is my way of stating what I think is the obvious. The church cannot sit down and rationally
discuss this issue with each other. We
can only question the motives of others.
We call each other names. One of
the favorite ways to win an argument today is to impugn the intentions and
character of the other side. We resort
to such tactics because our argument is weak and ineffective. We are not really after truth. We are after power.
I want to share some of the timidity
I feel in dealing with the issue that the
First, my discomfort over discussing
these matters is that the church has so many pressing issues facing it.
Mainline churches have focused upon this issue as if it is the only issue. We
have matters relating to strengthening families that needs the attention of the
church. I am increasingly concerned that the witness of the church in a secular
society experiences great harm because faith in Christ does not bring
Christians together, as denominations cling to their distinctive traditions.
Second, my discomfort over
discussing these matters is that it leads to the impression that homosexual
behavior is somehow worse than other sexual sins. I am uncomfortable with
making any set of sins “worse” than another is, for the temptation is for those
who do not do it to have a sense of superiority to those who do. Theologically,
every human being is a sinner. Human beings unite in this experience. No one
has the right to feel superior to another or to behave in a superior way toward
another. No one has the right to condemn another. I can see where someone may read the bible
differently on this matter, but it does appear that the bible is quite
concerned that we appropriately express our sexuality. I realize that we can
slip into thinking that sexual sins are somehow worse than any other sin is,
but that is not my point. The point is that this area of sexuality and the
family is quite important in the biblical text.
Third, my discomfort is that
Christians have too often used this discussion as a reason to deny the sacred
worth and dignity of other persons. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors.
We do not ask what religion they are, what denomination they belong to, what
color of skin they have, what economic class to which they belong, or what
sexual orientation they have.
Fourth is a matter unique to the
Fifth, I have much concern over the
way mainline churches have considered this matter. We have approached it as a
matter of church politics and law. The reality is that this is not simply a
technical change that some Christians want. It is a change in our beliefs and
values. The church needs to have ways of engaging this conversation with the
body of Christ in a way that invites full participation of those affected by
such changes. The
Sixth, I would like to suggest that,
given the monologue that scripture and tradition have concerning homosexual
practice, (both scripture and tradition have a simple answer: You shall not),
the only possible basis for change is that our culture experiences something
previous cultures have not. The argument would suggest that our culture has
seen the arrival of homosexual practice that is loving, mutually supportive,
and just in its relationship, and therefore deserves the blessing of the
church. Because one might consider this possibility as new, and therefore
something the Old Testament, Jesus, Paul, the apostolic churches, or the tradition
of the church, did not encounter, one could argue that the church needs to
adapt. My personal experience in this area is limited enough that I do not feel
competent enough to make a definitive judgment. I also admit that I am quite
hesitant to move against the wisdom of 3000 years of consistent biblical and
church teaching. However, I am open
enough to realize that the conversation needs to take place.
Seventh, the scientific and
biological matters ought not to carry too much weight, for sexual expression
proper for a Christian is primarily a matter of moral and spiritual guidance
that the church offers its members and its culture. Psychologically, many
persons have same sex orientation because of a disordered home life, even if
this statement would not apply to all persons. In mature sexual relationships,
sexual intimacy binds partners together in profound ways and many levels. For
this bond to occur between the sexes means that we enter into relationship with
one genuinely other from ourselves. The experience of the genuinely other helps
us grow in our sense of humanity. Further, from a biological perspective,
without going into too much detail, man and woman fit together physically quite
naturally. Another biological perspective is that our genes seem hard-wired to
reproduce themselves. I refer here to the work of Robert Wright, The Moral Animal and to Richard Dawkins,
The Selfish Gene. People can do this
most naturally in relationships between men and women. I recognize that science
may progress to a point where one does not need the opposite sex to reproduce,
but that is not a prominent way of reproducing at this point. If human genes
are hard-wired to reproduce, one ought to have no fear in making sure that
those who pursue same sex relationships have all the civil rights of any other
citizen. Same sex relationships will never become widely spread because it goes
so much against nature.
Eighth, when it comes to our
culture, I think the church needs to understand that a free, democratic, and
secular society will follow paths the church cannot follow. It does not mean
the church should oppose those paths politically. It does mean that Christians
in that setting need to have the strength to be who they are, in contrast to
the culture. In other words, we are in a situation similar to that of the first
Christians, who lived in a society that had no Christian influence. The church
needs to support full civil rights for persons who engage in homosexual
behavior. To refuse this is to suggest that somehow this behavior is worse than
any other behavior is.
Ninth, as an outsider to the
Anglican Communion, I have so little knowledge of the inner workings of the
system that anything I say may have little relevance. The question I would
offer is a matter of discerning the direction God is leading the church.
Discernment requires some sort of sifting process, dividing wheat from chaff,
so to speak. As one looks at the response of the worldwide Anglican Communion,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Pope, does it make anyone in the
Episcopal Church in
Many
proponents of a change in the stance of the church toward homosexual practice
use the example of the church has already made concerning divorce and
remarriage after divorce. I know that what I have to say here is far longer
than it should be, but it will give an example of what I would consider as
continuing a dialogue on matters of divorce and remarriage after divorce that
the bible started and the tradition of the church continued. I want to suggest
that the dialogue makes all the difference as to how we treat divorce and
homosexual practice from the context of the teaching of the bible.
To my
knowledge, monogamy is a marriage practice that the church slowly recognized as
the only way in which the people of God ought to honor each other. I grant that
in cultures that practice polygamy, the church allowed people who convert to
Christianity to remain in their style of marriage out of compassion. However,
the hint in Genesis that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife is
suggestive.
Genesis 1:26-28 (NRSV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Genesis 2:20-25 (NRSV)
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
The way Jesus uses this text is also suggestive in Mark 10:
2-12 .
Mark 10:6-9 (NRSV)
6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
To
shift the argument from Paul for a moment, Ephesians 5 speaks of mutual
submission to each other.
Ephesians 5:21-25 (NRSV)
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …
Paul
goes on to speak of the responsibility of marriage partners. We tend to focus upon the submission of
wives. However, he also speaks of the
kind of love the man is to have for the wife.
It is a sacrificial love, the kind of love that brings forth
service. My questions are these. What happens when marriage falls short of
that ideal? What happens when marriage,
far from fulfilling God’s purpose for the partners, becomes a degrading and
abusive relationship? What happens when
marriage, instead of helping the partners move toward their highest good,
brings out their darkness and sin? What
happens when the marriage, instead of helping the partners to become more like
Christ, fails to do so? Is there room for Christian couples to admit that they
have failed to fulfill the purpose of God for the marriage? Who has the
authority to make such a decision?
I grant the
strangeness of a cultural mindset that could argue for faithfulness in marriage
and assume multiple wives and concubines for those who could afford them.
However, we need to acknowledge that in societies that allow polygamy, monogamy
is the pattern. The pattern of monogamy developed into the life-style of
Christians over time. It appears to me that one of the reasons for monogamy is
theological.
As I
understand it, Hosea is the first prophet to use the image of husband and wife
as an analogy of the relationship between God and
I would
suggest that the church has not changed this positive evaluation of marriage.
If anything, the church has elevated the status of marriage in its tradition.
This positive view of marriage is the background out of which we can understand
the discussion within the bible about divorce.
First, let
us examine material in the Old Testament.
I begin with the only piece of
divorce legislation, contained in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Biblical scholars believe that the writers
completed the Deuteronomic history, including Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, during the time of exile, in 586-540 BC. However, we cannot date this particular
legislation, for it could come from much earlier. The text reads like this:
(Deu 24:1-4) Suppose
a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he
finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of
divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves
his house {2} and goes off to become another man's wife. {3} Then suppose the
second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and
sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); {4} her
first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his
wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and
you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a
possession.
The
many laws concerning marriage show a careful safeguarding of this area of human
life. The grounds for divorce here are
finding something “objectionable,” “disgraceful,” or “scandalous,” in the
woman. Note, however, that the court
system has nothing to do with the divorce.
Ending the marriage is between the man and the woman. Over time, Jewish law limited divorce so that
it was not just at the whim of the husband.
In the Code of Hammurabi, #137-140, we find no such requirement upon the
husband.
Malachi
2:13-16 comes from the period between 500 and 460 BC. The text reads like this:
(Mal 2:13-16) And
this you do as well: You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and
groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at
your hand. {14} You ask, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was a
witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been
faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. {15} Did not
one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire?
Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to
the wife of his youth. {16} For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of
Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So
take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.
People have used the saying “I hate divorce” toward me
several times, indicating that I have done something that God hates. It has been an important awareness of grace
that what God hates divorce, God loves the person who divorces – including me.
I invite you, however, to look at the context.
God does not hear their prayers or accept their offerings because they
have been faithless to the companion of their youth. Though they express great emotion in worship,
their moral wrong hindered access to God.
The use of “companion” in reference to the wife is the only time this
Hebrew word is used in this context.
Hebrew used this word only for close friends with shared interests. He focused upon loyalty and faithfulness
within the marriage covenant. He wants
husbands to remain true to their first wife.
However, the Hebrew text is not intelligible. Older men deserted their first wives to marry
younger, more sexually attractive women.
Men broke partnerships forged by years of shared struggle and joy. Some early Hebrew texts try to bring the
passage in line with Deuteronomy, where God permits divorce. This text makes it clear that God hates
divorce motivated by lust and the abandonment of women who have been faithful
and loving partners over the years.
Ezra 10:10-16 is the final text from the Old Testament
to which I direct your attention.
(Ezra 10:10-16) Then
Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have trespassed and
married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of
Here is a
situation where Ezra required divorce under the circumstances he
describes. Ezra discovered a widespread
practice of marriage with foreign wives. As a Persian official, his summons for
people to come together carried a lot of weight. He wanted the removal of foreign wives. However, the fact that immediate action was
not practical shows how widespread it was.
I would now
like to share with you the Jewish position on divorce in the context of the
first century AD. Divorce had long been
legally permissible by Jewish law. In that tradition, only the man could
divorce the woman. Mark interprets the
motive of the Pharisees as a test, either for a fine point law, or to bring
Jesus into conflict with Herod. Herod imprisoned
and executed John the Baptist because he denounced the marriage practices of
Herod Antipas and Herodias (6:17f). When these Pharisees, who had earlier
joined forces with the "Herodians" (3:6), confront Jesus on this
topic, the location is in Perea ‑‑ within the tetrarch's
jurisdiction. Jesus' pronouncement is an obvious comment on the divorce and
remarriage of these rulers. The only continuing debate about divorce in first‑century
Judaism existed between the followers of the more conservative
As we move
to the New Testament, the context in which both Jesus and Paul address
themselves to marriage is the soon arrival of the end, so the possibility that
of living a long period without the blessing a happy marriage, even a second
one, did not realistically occur to them. Further, the early centuries of the
church developed increasing asceticism, to the point where celibacy became
valued more so than a happy marriage. It stands to reason, in such contexts,
that remarriage after divorce would not find acceptance. Yet, pastoral concerns
led to considering human brokenness as a regrettable reality in Christian
marriages.
I suspect
that the saying of Jesus in Luke
Luke
18 “Anyone who divorces his
wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced
from her husband commits adultery.
Under the supposition of many scholars that when there are
multiple versions of a saying of Jesus in the gospels, the hardest saying is
likely the saying of Jesus, we can assume that this saying is closest to what
Jesus taught concerning divorce. It contains an absolute prohibition of
remarrying after divorce. Jesus likely applied the rule against priests
marrying divorced women in the Holiness Code to the community he formed. The
early church struggled with the pastoral application of this saying of Jesus to
the new setting several decades after the death of Jesus. The early church,
rather than adopt a rule oriented approach to a saying of Jesus, sought to
apply the teaching of Jesus in the same spirit that Jesus understood the Torah
and prophets. Out love for God and neighbor, it considered that adultery would
be an occasion when the offended party could divorce remarry.
Matthew 19:9 (NRSV)
9 And I say to you, whoever
divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits
adultery.”
Paul finds a further reason to refuse a strict rule oriented
approach to the saying of Jesus as he considered another pastoral situation and
came down on the side of love:
1 Corinthians
15 But if
the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or
sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.
He suggests that if a non-Christian spouse divorces the
Christian spouse, the Christian should be at peace with the decision and the implication
is that remarriage is acceptable.
I invite you to consider the pastoral approach of the
church to the human brokenness expressed in divorce.
Divorce and
re-marriage is a rather clear example of the dialogue that within the biblical
tradition and within the tradition of the church. The church tradition assumes
from a theological perspective that human beings cannot dissolve marriage. Yet,
the direction of the bible and the tradition on this matter, the allowance for
divorce and remarriage became a pastoral necessity. In later tradition, the
death of the person from one is divorced becomes another sufficient allowance
for remarriage. The Orthodox Church has taken this path before the church of
the west did in that it considered the possibility of two divorces as
allowable. It also considered that after the second divorce, the church would
not remarry, for the person ought to consider the possibility that marriage is
simply not for him or her. The ecumenical councils of the church deal with
second marriages in a variety of ways, all stressing the seriousness of
divorce. They give guidance on what happens if a man marries a divorced woman,
and then wants to become clergy. They give guidance on the procedure for
penance if someone divorces. Just as the New Testament considered proper
grounds for divorce, the tradition continues that discussion, as well as
grounds sufficient for a second marriage. In the context of sexuality,
ecumenical councils defended marriage against attacks from the growing celibate
community. The growing Christianizing of European culture led to less tolerance
of divorce and even more so of remarriage. If one assumes that both partners of
the marriage are Christian, they receive the blessing of the church, and the
culture supports Christian teaching and values, one ought not to be surprised
that divorce and remarriage have less tolerance. However, the church continued
its struggle to identify proper grounds. This means that the church is not
against divorce. Rather, from a pragmatic perspective, it seeks to give
spiritual and moral guidance as to the proper occasion for it.
God takes the act of divorce
seriously. Anyone who has been through a
divorce knows that there is plenty of sin to go around. We also know it represents a human failure
and falls short of God’s intent in marriage.
The value of commitment and fidelity, the value of raising children, and
the value of entering into relationship genuinely other in terms of sexuality,
helps us to experience the good that God intends. Marriage and family are the primary ethical
and moral training ground for us as human beings.
Jesus and Paul both developed their
ethics and morality out of the vision of the soon arrival of the
In the matter of marriage, we can
all agree that the ethical ideal of Jesus to a life-long marriage is
clear. We can agree that Paul’s vision
of a life-long marriage relationship of mutual support and love between a man
and a woman is in line with God’s ideal as expressed in Genesis. However, we can also observe the reality that
human beings fall short of that ethical demand.
Ought this observation to surprise us?
We are, after all, sinners. We
must remind ourselves that, no matter how moral and righteous any of us might
be we are not perfect. All of us fall
short of our own ideals, let alone those that God has for us. Those who have had happy marriages may pride
themselves on doing so, and wonder why not everyone can be as good as they
are. However, I would also suggest that
they are nowhere near as good as they think they are. Further, I would also suggest that people who
experience the pain of divorce are not as bad as others may think. I say all of this to suggest that we all
depend upon grace for our happiness in life.
We live by grace, and we are in constant need of forgiveness. As for me, I am on the side of the church
being a means of grace to all sinners – like me and like the reader of this
text. Divorce is a public matter.
However, the good person often has secret sins they allow to
themselves. We often excuse those
private sins of thought or desire, excusing our own sin, while judging the sins
of others. We separate ourselves from
another person whom we believe not to be as good as that we are.
I have suggested an ethical and
pastoral interpretation, rather than a legal interpretation, of the prohibition
on divorce and remarriage. We all need
grace. We have become new persons in
Christ. As God continually makes us new
persons, and shapes us into the image of Christ, the church needs to accept
that new creation. God takes the
covenant of marriage between two persons seriously. God treats divorce
seriously. God treats it as the ethical,
moral, and spiritual issue that it is, rather than as an item of law. Therefore, the bible does not mean that
divorce and remarriage are unforgivable.
Whatever sin we experience in divorce, God is fully capable of forgiving
that sin. Further, as God forgives, God
forgets. The same needs to become true
of the church. We have the obvious biblical emphasis upon our need for grace
and forgiveness because of sin.
Therefore, a view consistent with the dialogue the bible began would be
that divorce is permissible, even if it is not a righteous choice. In an imperfect world, people sometimes make
choices that are the lesser of evils. Further, I suggest that remarriage is not
an adulterous condition. Sexual
relations within the second marriage are holy.
A culture that prizes the value of the individual is a good culture in which to live. Such a culture encourages in individuals the discovery of the unique gift that each individual can offer to others, and then encourages individuals to offer that gift. The challenge that such a culture presents is that as one matures, few institutions or individuals tend to have the type of influence upon individual members that would give practical guidance in leading a happy a meaningful life. Individuals receive guidance in their families, although that guidance may be quite strong in some families and quite weak in other families. Religious institutions also provide spiritual and moral guidance, usually relying upon the wisdom of their sacred texts and their traditions. In adult life, listening to such authorities becomes a optional and voluntary. Modern society tends to put such traditional wisdom into question. Just as science and technology improve the everyday lives of individuals and families, people living in modern societies often assume that they can put behind them the wisdom of the past.
The respect that modern society offers to individuals has the effect in many individuals that freedom means being able to do whatever one wants to do. Yet, this is an illusion. The first human community to which most persons relate is their biological family. They learn to relate to authority figures and too often to siblings and the extended family. They learn to relate to neighbors and playmates. In the process, they discover that they cannot do whatever they want. They learn to discipline their desires and discern courses of action and behavior in relationship with others. In fact, they discover their sense of self in relationship with others. Although modern society gives valued individuals the impression that only the individual matters, individuals find both unity and diversity in the context of human community.
Human love calls people to move beyond themselves and involve themselves in the lives, hopes, and dreams of others. The experience of such love is a feeling for others and their importance in one’s life. This love is not morality itself, but rather prepares the way for moral discourse. Considerations of morality and ethics have their source in love. Love causes us to de-center self and find our fulfillment in caring for another. Individuals find their fulfillment in relationship with others. Our encounter with persons different from us calls us out of ourselves and into new discovery of the potential person we can become. For the Christian, this means shifting focus from self and toward Christ. Love also points people beyond morality. Moral and ethical discussions center in behavior that expresses love, both toward God and toward people. Such discussions help people reflect upon the best human life. Therefore, any discussion of human sexuality must reject legal or casuistic approaches. The test of this discussion is whether it is consistent with loving God and loving the neighbor. The same love that God has for the world the church must share. The guidance the church seeks to give in the area of human sexuality arises out of its love for its members and for the world. This perspective shapes the participation of the church in the public square. The church seeks dialogue as a participant and beneficiary of modern society. Through its participation in societal dialogue and debate, the church seeks to offer its wisdom, to learn from others, and in the process to improve our life together.
Modern society often has an unhealthy focus upon sex. Our sexuality is an important dimension of who we are. Sexual desire affects our view of self as well as the other. People in modern society seem to talk more about sex than anything else. Modern people seem to expect so much from sex as well. The more sex one has, with as many partners as one can, seems to lead toward a life of happiness. Sex is a disappointing answer to the riddles of human life. This path has also led to the wreckage of many lives. This grasping at sex for a meaningful and happy life is asking sex to have a place in our lives that it does not deserve. People who devote their lives to unrestricted sexual satisfaction do not attain happiness. Sex has become almost too available. Detached from consideration of the best human life, sex loses its potential for human fulfillment. In such a setting, any sexual partner will suffice. People appear to have so much sex and so little meaning, fun, passion and feeling in having it. People have become more concerned about technique rather than passion, meaning, or pleasure. Compulsive preoccupation with sex is part of our struggle for identity. We also want to overcome our solitariness. We desperately endeavor to escape feelings of emptiness and the threat of apathy. Human fascination with sex is also understandable in that the sexually other fascinates us. We long for the completion of our humanity in one sexually other than us. Yet, we can become bound to the other, who can become a god or devil in that role. We cannot be godlike to and for others. Contrary to the experience of elevating the sexual partner into the position of a god, we cannot offer others redemption, just as others cannot offer us redemption.
Modern society seems to find the expression of sexuality particularly difficult for the establishing of proper boundaries of human behavior. Some of these boundaries seem rather obvious. Parents do not make children the object of their sexual desire. Adults do not make children the object of their sexual desire. Siblings do not make each other the object of sexual desire. Such boundaries seem rather obvious for healthy families even in modern societies. Yet, many other relationships seem up in the air. Where do modern people go to receive wise counsel in the matter of sexuality? Where do Christians go to receive guidance?
I want to begin with a simple ideal that finds its foundation in the bible, Christian tradition, and finds much support in every culture. Family involves the joining of a man and a woman in affection and commitment, reserving sexual expression for each other and normally involves raising children together. When sex is part of faithful and loving relationship, it becomes beautiful. The church celebrates gender diversity as a gift of God. True love enables us to see. Love permits us to see the spiritual core of the other, the reality of the potential of the other. Becoming openly intimate with another becomes a window toward genuinely loving relationships with others. Genuinely loving another helps us become loving people, loving in a way that shares love with others as well. We grow in our love for humanity and in our love of life. Such love implies care, the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Many people have a nagging suspicion that nothing matters; we cannot do anything to make changes. Therefore, we become apathetic, uninvolved, and grasp for external stimulants. Care suggests that something does matter. Care is the opposite of apathy. Care is what we need to heal such sickness. We tend toward another; we have inclination toward another and give attention to another. Such love implies responsibility, our response to the needs of another human being. Such love implies respect; the ability to see the unique individuality of the other, separating the others growth from any purpose in serving us. Such love implies knowledge of the other, transcending simple concern for us. Isolated individuals are little more than fragments, while a meaningful life experiences the profound connection each life has with another. Love is the royal road to genuine knowledge of another and us. It is the way to genuine union, answering our quest to escape the prison of our aloneness. In genuinely discovering another, we find ourselves. The act of love transcends thought and words.
Many people
in modern society return to the traditional wisdom concerning sexuality after
discovering the way one can degrade others and oneself through the perversion
of sexual desire. The church recognizes that this path is an illusion. Genesis
1 and 2 make it clear that a man shall leave his parents and create a new bond
with his wife. Jesus made clear that this ideal remains the pattern for his
understanding of family. In the Old Testament, we find the pattern of
relationships in the families become a metaphor for the relationship between
God and
The New Testament continues with its assumption that the household consists first of the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, and master and slave. I would emphasize that the New Testament focuses upon the soft use of power required from the one in authority. Given the hierarchical structure of first century Roman and Greek civilization, the New Testament encourages those in authority to use their power in nurturing ways that model the serving character of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit.
This pattern for the proper expression of human sexuality has good grounding in common sense. Many scientists will say that our genetic structure drives us to reproduce the genes in another. Yet, most of us recognize that more is at work than genes desiring reproduction. We are not human beings in general, but only as male and female. The single life is a valuable and worthwhile contribution to human community when it involves a full dedication of oneself to God and to some form of ministry. Yet, when we have the capacity to enter into an intimate, faithful, and sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex, we discover dimensions of our humanity that we would not otherwise discover. Every constitution of the family is worthwhile, whether as single persons, married without children, single with children, and married with children. However, we recognize the importance of children to develop their identity in relationship to both the same sex parent and the opposite sex parent. These early relationships are important for the development of healthy adults.
The matter of human sexuality particularly falls under the injunction of Paul to honor God in the body and to consider our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. What we do with our bodies is important to God. Our bodies are the only bodies we will have in this life. Scientifically, we know that this is the only time that this set of genes has ever existed or ever will exist. We have a unique gift to offer, and we can offer that gift only with this body. We will only be in these bodies a brief time. The same is true as we come face to face with others. They are unique gifts who will live a relatively brief time. We need to honor them as temples of the Holy Spirit.
The bible also recognizes that human beings cross these boundaries regularly. The Holiness Code of Leviticus 17-26 is one example. It gives guidance on many matters, but the guidance it gives on human sexual experience is my focus. Males are the object of most of these prohibitions. The text gives a clear no. Men ought not to have intercourse with a woman in her menstrual cycle, commit adultery, have same gender intercourse, or have intercourse with an animal. Sons ought not to have intercourse with their mothers, nor fathers with their daughters or daughters in law, or have intercourse with his wife and mother in law. The text gives a general prohibition of sexual relationships with anyone who has a close family connection, such as nephew, niece, aunt, and uncle. Brothers and sisters are not to have intercourse with each other.
Although not quite as specific, the New Testament also offers its list of sexual activities that transgress the boundaries of acceptable Christian behavior: Adulteries, Fornication, Impurity, Licentiousness, Male prostitutes (malakoi), and Sodomites arsenokoitai.
When it comes to sexual boundaries in the biblical tradition, the apodictic argument is typical: “You shall not.” This form of argument assumes that what it prohibits is self-evident. The statement does not require rational argument in its favor, for the writer considers its truth as obvious. It does not consider the possibility that its opposite might be true. Of course, modern society no longer considers the sexual boundaries I have discussed as self-evident. In that setting, the church will need to consider whether it can arrive at satisfactory reasons for continuing these boundaries, or making reasonable adjustments. The modern church will have to persuade others in ways other than apodictic statements. My own approach is to suggest a form of argument that lays before others our core convictions, the vision of a form of life among Christians and within the church, and determine those places where we can be together and where we must separate.
Modern society offers individuals great freedom to find what they believe to be the best human life. Consistent with this value of the individual, the church recognizes that all persons have sacred worth and dignity grounded in the divine origin of their lives. All persons deserve love and respect as children of God. Yet, the church recognizes that the abuse of freedom actually makes one a slave to passions and desires that inhibit one from leading the best human life and Christian life they could lead. Even modern society recognizes that many of the prohibitions that date back to the Holiness Code remain in effect. Far from wanting to put people into bondage, the church offers its wisdom in the area of human sexuality out of love for others. In particular, people may sincerely believe that their sexual desire is God-given, even where it moves in territory outside the boundaries established in the bible and in the teaching of Jesus. In other words, the perversion of sexual desire is possible. As with any gift of God, human beings can become confused emotionally or downright evil in the exercise of God-given desire.
What has been the effect of the abuse of freedom in the arena of sexual expression? Let us consider a few controversial topics.
Our society has seen the explosion of abortion as a means of birth control. Regardless of what society does with the legal of abortion, this does not determine the moral and spiritual issue facing the church. The formation of new life for human beings is not only a biological event, but a moral and spiritual event as well. The church recognizes the tragic choice in abortion at many levels. Yet, respect for life is an important principle that the church must uphold. The spiritual guidance the church gives is simple. Please confine the expression of sexual desire to the context of the marriage relationship. Please use modern means of birth control. Please respect life enough that you will bring the child to term. If you cannot adequately love and nurture this child, please place him or her into the loving hands others who can. Of course, the decision to abort, as serious as it is, does not place one outside of the love and care of God. In the same way, the church models the love and forgiveness of God by welcoming all persons into its family.
Our society has seen an explosion in sexual experimentation, beginning increasingly early and continuing increasingly late. When we treat intercourse in such a casual way, we also treat others and ourselves in casual ways. This emphasis upon sexuality shows itself in sexual harassment as well. Harassment is about the abuse of power as much as it is about the perversion of our sexual desire. We degrade each other along such paths. The church extends love and forgiveness to all persons, regardless of their sexual history. The church extends the same love and forgiveness to those of its own membership who become confused in this area of life. Yet, the Christian ideal remains that of preserving sexual expression in the context of the faithful and loving relationship of husband and wife.
Our society has seen the explosion of divorce. The fact that two people unite in marriage based upon some level of affection and commitment makes us aware of the slender threads that keep two people together. The public act of uniting in marriage in the presence of minister and congregation can strengthen those bonds. The Christian ideal or norm is the faithful and loving relationship between a man and a woman. When two people can maintain this relationship, and mentor others in it by their example, they become powerful witnesses to what God intends for marriage.
However,
human will and human feeling often fail. In such circumstances, the church
encourages couples to seek psychological, marital, and spiritual counsel. Even
when two people are Christians, they may find that what they thought they had
at the beginning of their marriage was not truly there or could not survive.
The church does everything it can to provide a loving and supportive community
for couples who face such options. God may hate divorce. God continues to love
divorced people. The church encourages couples to minimize the negative
influence of divorce upon their children. The New Testament struggles with the
proper conditions for ending a marriage in a way that frees the individuals to
re-marry. The New Testament does not speak with one voice. Luke
The church continues the discussion of the New Testament and the tradition in a modern context. Average life expectancy of individuals has increased from 45 to 75. Increased opportunities for women to support themselves economically have given them greater freedom to make choices of whether to remain with a partner. None of these realities justifies an easy divorce for Christians. Children suffer in most divorces. Yet, they may also suffer in the marriage. The couple needs to consider prayerfully the impact of divorce upon their children. Christians often fall short of what God intends in marriage. Instead of fulfilling the purpose of God for them, the marriage becomes degrading and abusive. Instead of encouraging the couple toward their highest and best life, it brings out their darkness and sin. The marriage fails in helping the partners become more like Christ. This abuse of the marriage relationship dishonors the intent God has for marriage and disrupts the social order. The church recognizes that Christian couples may in fact fail to fulfill the purpose of God for them, for their children, and for their marriage. The external and legal act of divorce is recognition of a divorce that has already happened in their hearts. They have already broken the covenant of marriage that involves loving, honoring, and cherishing each other. Breaking this covenant is serious. Couples need to give prayerful attention to restoring their covenant and finding new life with each other. However, if a couple makes the decision to divorce, the church does not pass judgment, for only the couple and God know the actual workings of their relationship. The church continues to offer a loving and forgiving community, even while it continues to uphold the ideal of faithful and loving married relationships.
Our society has seen the potential for re-defining what constitutes family. Society has done this in the past. It often experiments with polygamy, with mistresses, and with prostitution. It encourages “free love,” as if sex without commitment and affection is an ideal toward which individuals should strive. Most immediately, this has meant defining marriage and family to include same-gender relationships. We might also wonder if society will also accept as family units polygamous relationships as well. Two questions society must raise is that if there are boundaries in terms of sexual expression, where will society draw them? What context is best for children? Since one of the areas the church has always exerted its greatest influence is the family, such societal changes affect the life of church. They are important discussions because they affect core beliefs and values of those involved. The position of the church is reasonably simple. The best family context for children is where husband and wife remain together faithfully and lovingly. In this situation, children have the greatest possibility of maturing in reasonably healthy ways into adult life. The proper place to express oneself sexually is in the relationship of husband and wife.
The well-being of individuals and the manner in which human society finds itself linked together has its source in the human community called family and marriage. The family is an intimate community, a school of deeper humanity. It needs a generous communion of minds and hearts and deliberation between spouses and deliberation between parents and children. Children need the kind of education that will help them engage society in a meaningful and responsible way and form families of their own. Various generations often come together in the family. They help each other grow in wisdom. They help harmonize personal rights with responsibilities to a community. Political and economic leaders have an interest in recognizing the dignity of the family, protecting it, and promoting it. The advancement of the well-being of domestic life enhances broader human society.
Our society has witnessed increasing awareness of the nature of sexual orientation. Questions of sexual orientation bring one beyond biblical awareness or the discussions in the traditions of the church. The bible and church tradition know only the practice of heterosexuality or homosexuality. Matters of genetics and biology do not resolve such matters. The philosophical tradition has determined that in moral discourse, what is naturally does not determine what ought to be. If a particular gene determines an inclination toward same-gender sexual desire, we also know that genes want to be reproduced. We may also discover genes that will tend a person toward violence, although society will still hold such persons accountable for what they do with that tendency. Doctors fight against diseases instilled in the genes. Nature may give every individual a tendency in certain directions. However, family, community, culture, and personal responses to these factors, hold individuals responsible for the form their life takes. The argument from biology rarely gives answers in such matters because they involve the quality of our relationships with other persons. Biology cannot solve moral dilemmas. Human beings will still have to face each other, consider how they treat each other, and offer reasons for their behavior.
For some persons in the church, this awareness of sexual orientation suggests that faithful and loving same-gender relationships constitute a Christian ideal for individuals and families. They argue that the Old Testament, Jesus, and Paul, did not know of such relationships, and therefore did not address this possibility. They further compare the homosexual experience to that of slavery and racism, suggesting that normalizing homosexual practice is a matter of social justice. The church must also face the reality that some of its members believe their same-gender sexual orientation is a gift from God to them. Learning from this view, the church reaffirms the sacred worth and dignity of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. The church rejects discrimination solely because of sexual orientation, recognizing that some positions in some organizations will have moral reasons for making such hiring distinctions. The church rejects any form of physical or verbal abuse of persons with same-gender sexual orientation. Any church that makes homosexual persons uncomfortable in church has not modeled the compassion Jesus showed to the crowds. Consequently, lovingly embracing those whom we know as homosexual is simply another way of loving our neighbors. Christians love others, not because they believe the same or act acceptably, but because all persons are of sacred worth and dignity.
For other persons, the church best preserves its sacred text, its traditions, and its wisdom, by continuing encouraging the norm and ideal of faithful and loving relationships between husband and wife. These persons consider that homosexual practice opens itself to abuse of sexual desire: promiscuity, the violence of the sex act in male homosexuality, and the tendency toward eliminating sex in female homosexuality. In the matter of homosexual practice, neither the biblical tradition nor the Christian tradition contains any discussion on the matter of whether homosexuality is consistent with the Christian sexual ideal. In fact, homosexual practice receives a clear prohibition: “You shall not.” In this fact, homosexuality differs from the matter of divorce, where the bible begins a consideration of the proper conditions for divorce and the Christian tradition continued that discussion. It also differs from the social justice issue of slavery, where the New Testament begins a discussion of the role of the slave in the Christian community. The common basis of salvation is clear: In Christ, there is neither slave nor free. The experience in the Christian community that united believers at the Lord’s Table and in baptism was a sign of the future unity of humanity, regardless of economic class. Such considerations legitimately led the church to denounce slavery, even if such statements were entirely too late in history.
For these persons, the wisdom of the church concerning homosexual practice is consistent with the Christian and Jewish traditions, other religious traditions, and with many other cultures, in a way that makes it difficult to abrogate the prohibitions as easily as some appear to do. The church commits itself to open and honest dialogue on this matter. However, out of concern for its ecumenical relationships, it concern for its sacred texts and traditions, its concern for the global Christian community, and its love for those who sense same-gender sexual orientation, the church cannot set forth any kind of same-gender relationship as an ideal toward which any Christian should strive. Further, the church continues to uphold as the Christian ideal the family of husband, wife, and children. The church embraces those families of divorce and single parent homes, providing a supportive and loving community. The church recognizes that Christians may well engage in same-gender relationships. The church recognizes that all persons sin and fall short of the glory of God. The church also recognizes that all of the vices listed in the New Testament direct themselves at the church and its members. If members of the church did not experience temptation to do them, and in fact practice them, the writers would hardly need to encourage their avoidance. All persons are of sacred worth and dignity, including those who commit any of the vices listed in the New Testament. The church remains hesitant to lift out one of the vices listed, homosexuality, and declare that the apostles got this one wrong, even while they got all the others right.
The church reminds all persons that in matters of human sexuality, as with all matters related relationships with other human beings, we remember these words of Paul:
Philippians 4:8 (NRSV) Finally, beloved, whatever is
true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is
pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is
anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
I would now like to offer a few
comments on the involvement of Christians in the political power structures of
modernity. Considering that even today, many pre-modern societies do not allow
such involvement, the church and Christians ought to begin with some gratitude
for modernity and its openness to the church at this level.
We find ourselves perplexed by the
issue of church and society. Christians
of all political perspectives have become nervous that the faith and their
scripture apply to so little of the concerns that we face as a culture. The bible and much of Christian history
existed within cultures that deserved a counter-culture or sub-culture, or a
desire to overthrow that culture. One wonders if the secular culture of the
west, as it orients itself around freedom, pluralism, and democratic
institutions, deserves overthrow, an alternative culture, or, as I would
suggest, people working within it who move toward responsible use of the
precious gift of freedom that we have. Culture continues to differentiate and
specialize through its institutions. No institution provides a central
organizing authority. In such a society, the church does not have the role of
providing a foundation for the culture, or even an alternative culture. The
bible makes us uncomfortable with its focus upon God and upon Christ. Politics and economics seem so much more
exciting and important than matters like meaning, purpose, values, helping
experience God and become followers of Jesus Christ. The bible concerns itself with matters that
embarrass us.
We
can observe the power of liberal and conservative political ideology by their
willingness to subsume matters of religious faith to that ideology. The interaction of religion and politics has
taken a dangerous turn. People with
liberal and conservative political ideology have used religion to advance their
own power. Theologians speak of a desire
to change social structures. However,
which vision of social structure will they implement? On the religious left, we have many black
religious organizations and liberal Protestant denominations. They use the language of compassion to
advance the cause of increased power to
Unfortunately, many people who
genuinely care about their culture end up using religion simply as a means for
improving culture. People often want to use religion as a means of propping up
some perceived weakness in culture. This functional view of religion is far
from what any devout participant in any religion would consider as the purpose
of a religious community. This failure to recognize religion as helping culture
to determine proper ends, rather than making culture itself the end, is an
important distinction to make. The mistake is that divine presence is not
limited to religious institutions. The church becomes demonic when it limits
divine activity to the realm of the church. The secular cannot avoid the move
toward the holy, just as the holy cannot avoid the secular. For me, one of the
gifts of Christianity is that it makes relative any social order in which it
exists. It recognizes a life-giving power and meaning from beyond cultural
values and institutions. The church is a force within society moving against
power concentrating into the hands of a few and implementing its absolute
ideological vision. Morality depends upon sufficiently vital communities that
can produce well-lived lives. Christian ethics calls us to learn what it means
to live rightly in the world.
My
concern is that the quest for power by both political liberals and political
conservatives to control the future of the nation forces religious institutions
to serve a political ideology. However,
those who value religious institutions know that the believer owes allegiance
only to God.
For
people of faith, the force of law and politics will not bring the desired moral
transformation of our culture that our religious institutions seek. That kind of transformation can only come
from within. The church needs to address
the needs of the human heart and behavior.
When churches expend too much energy toward political power, they lose
moral authority. Politics is messy
business. Anyone who has been involved
in political power struggles in the church knows how unchristian the Christian
community can become. The church
throughout history has been at its best when it directs its attention on the
moral and spiritual renewal of the human heart and life. The nation needs the liberal message of
compassion and the conservative message of moral standards addressed to the
free choice of individuals rather than political power. The nation needs a compassionate people. The nation needs a moral people. However, the needs of the nation do not
motivate religious institutions. The
allegiance of religious institutions is to God, not the nation. The nation may not value such contributions
by the church. However, the church continues faithfully to carry out its
mission. Such goals are worthy and important.
Precisely because of their importance, the nation also needs the federal
government to stay out of the way.
People who have liberal or conservative principles believe strongly in what they believe. They are willing to call themselves moderates, when they are, in reality, liberal or conservative. They are willing to use religious faith to advance their desire to determine the future of the nation. The moderate must decide in a case-by-case basis what they believe. Religious institutions must decide if they want to be a pawn the quest for power.
Like most Americans, I have some of my most powerful experiences in nature. I have surrounded myself with so much that human beings make. When I break out of that mode and appreciate all that we have available free in nature, I find myself increasingly grateful for the world God has made. Most of us support groups like the Audubon Society, either with dollars or at least in their objectives. We have a moral obligation to care for our environment. We know that we are part of nature. We can live in reasonable harmony with nature by fulfilling natural desires. Ownership of property means that people have responsibility for their limited piece of the world. Too many persons do not take this responsibility seriously. However, many persons find ways of expressing their sense of self-worth and dignity through what they own. They recognize the opportunity that ownership brings in creatively expresses the uniqueness that belongs to each person.
I want to do justice to both the biblical witness concerning the constancy and order of the universe and the modern scientific understanding of ongoing creative activity in nature. Evolutionary theory suggests a theology in which we see the both preservation of order and bringing forth new life as part of the creative work of God. The world is the handiwork of God. In creation, wherever we turn we meet the work of God. We need to reflect upon God’s intent and design in creating it. Contemplation on the fact that God has provided humanity with everything necessary for a meaningful, happy life leads us to consider the architect and our confidence and thanksgiving toward God. Human beings are in intimate part of nature. Human beings are not alien to the ongoing creative process of God as seen in evolution. This world, this universe, is the only home people will know in these bodies.
Understanding the universe as created suggests that the universe finds its completion beyond itself. The affirmation of life has biblical roots in that God is the creator of heaven and earth. The use of spirit, soul, which in Hebrew and Greek refers to the wind or breath, suggest the image of life as well. We see this in Genesis 2, Ezekiel 37, and Acts 2. The world God created is good. The world is a home for humanity. The bible calls those who believe to love the world God created.
God had only one reason to create the world. God graciously conferred existence on individuals. God gave others existence alongside God's own divine being. The very existence of the world is an expression of the goodness of God. God is free in this act of love. Creation can only be the work of the love and goodness of God. God loves this creation perfectly. This means that we do not need to win independence from God. God has graciously granted humanity an independent existence. That is the goal of the creative work of God. The creation of a reality distinct from God, one that is not an echo of God, and a reality that God affirms and with whom God desires fellowship, requires a universe of things God has made.
The preserving work of God makes possible the independence of the things God has made. The concept of preservation implies that what is to be preserved does not owe its existence to itself. God reaches the goal of the original creative action with producing creatures that persist and that exist independently from each other and from God. God sustains the world through relations of the parts to each other, and not just in isolation from each other.
The freedom and independence of the world suggests genuine social existence of the world, whether in the community of atoms and cells, or in the interdependence of human beings. God enters into dialogue with rebellious and free human beings. God is the gardener in the vineyard of the world, fostering and nurturing its continuous evolutionary growth throughout all ages. This view of the action of God in the world is consistent with the traits of the patience and kindness of God in dealing with human beings as related in the bible. Having called individuality into existence, God respects their independence through persuasion rather than force. Such action is divine because have their source in the love of God, who willed free and independent persons.
Human awareness of finitude, as relation to other finite creatures while remaining oneself, does not mean that humanity accepts this finite condition. Humanity often seeks unlimited expansion of existence. Human beings seem unaware of the source of all things in the world as found in God. Their everyday dealings with the world, their routine, and their utilitarian approach to reality, trend toward dullness concerning the divine foundation of all things in God. We seem dull to the genuinely astounding fact of the order of nature, its regularities and its enduring constructs.
The theology of creation suggests two important dimensions of the relation between God and the world. The first is that the tragic character of human life does not define human life, for creativity and life is the essential nature of things. The second is the natural necessity of death and the potentiality of the tragic, for not existing is a real possibility. The question with which this teaching confronts us is what it means to be a finite person, and what it means for us to have some sense of accountability of our lives to God. To know ourselves in this way is to know ourselves as interdependent individuals, answerable to the call toward the fullness of human life. Humanity itself, as created in the image of God, has potential for this fullness of life. Even though humanity has its origin in God, just as the rest of the universe, humanity does not find satisfaction of desire in the things in the world. The heart seems restless until it finds rest in something beyond humanity. Frustration and illusion arise if people try to find satisfaction and happiness in the natural and social world.
Humanity often works with nature to make the world increasingly like a home. In particular, modern society seeks the improvement of daily life for the masses. Science and technology provide opportunities that previous generations could hardly have imagined. Yet, such advances occur because of increased knowledge about the world, especially about atoms, cells, and chemical reactions. For the sake of our life together, science, communities, and religious communities, need to remain in dialogue with each other to determine proper courses of action. Simply because science describes a process whereby human beings can do something does not mean that human beings should do it. Such decisions require the involvement of all participants in modern society. The churches need to have a place at that table. Many advances have unintended effects. The improvement of daily life has brought increased life expectancy, increased challenges of old age, and increased population. The use of natural resources to improve human life has unforeseen effects upon other species. Humanity even becomes a danger to itself, as the problems of pollution and over population show. Proper harmonization of human need with nature is an important way for human beings to increase their awareness and care for what is beyond them. Human beings do not stand aloof from nature, but rather are in intimate communion with it. Even surrounding oneself with things constructed by people still recognizes the web of natural and human relationships that brought produce them. The recognition of this web of relationships leads us to care for all living things in their proper sphere. Agriculture is that form of life that seeks to meet the nutritional needs of the population in connection with ecosystems. Plants and animals sustain human life, as do human beings often sustain the lives of plants and animals. The nurture and care for the natural environment has led to preservation of many species that might normally have died out long ago. Over the centuries, human beings have also generated new breeds within species. In many ways, science has speeded up the process of evolution. Processes that may have taken millions of years human beings have understood and implemented for the improvement of life. We see this early on in breeding of animals, and has continued with the profound impact of understanding the structure of the gene. Although we need much care in the implementation of human knowledge, such advances are important for the improvement of human life. For example, eugenic and gender choices with such knowledge is path down which human communities ought not to go. Germ-line therapies, such as using undifferentiated embryonic cells for research, are highly questionable in this context. The growth of world population is primarily among pre-modern societies. What we can notice is that the most advanced nations in terms of liberal democracy, science, and technology are also the ones in which population increases are modest. Consequently, the best control of population is to encourage increased acceptance of the value of individuals as well as the value of science and technology. Such acceptance would lead to increased respect for the role of women in society, better health care, and increased literacy.
Unfortunately,
elitist thinking in relation to the environment has sought to use this moral
concern for the environment to advance a political agenda. That agenda assumes that the masses of
Americans cannot care for the environment without the guidance from them. It also assumes that an active and expansive
federal government must protect the environment from the masses of people in
this country who are, apparently, out to destroy the environment in which they
live. In particular, it assumes that businesses people who must live in this
world and in communities do not mind destroying the natural environment upon
which they depend. The attack upon private property becomes rather obvious. Some
persons seem to assume that ownership of property means exploitation of natural
resources as well as others. The
At the first Earth Day in 1970, leaders predicted that by 1980 city dwellers would need gas masks to breathe, rivers will have reached the boiling point, animal life in the sea will be extinct and the country will have to evacuate large areas of coastline because of the stench of dead fish. 1975 would be our last year to preserve any quality of life. The primary concern was global cooling. They wanted government action to stop the coming ice age. Paul Ehrlich called the American people "a cancer on the planet."
Global
warming is the issue for the environmental elite. We can look at this concern from several
perspectives. In one sense, the planet has been warming for thousands of
years. The small polar icecaps of the
today were once as far south as the
I fail to see any danger to planet earth. It has been here for two billion years. Scientists tell us it will be here for another two billion. The earth is not a fragile planet. Only a romantic view of nature, even a somewhat sexist one (Mother Nature) could conclude that it is fragile. It has withstood meteors and other forms of devastation in its history. It has an amazing ability to re-create itself. For us to assume that we could do anything to harm this planet is the height of arrogance. If we harm anything on this planet, it will be ourselves.
For this reason, we need to seriously consider the form of social world that best uses the environment for the improvement of ordinary human life as well as protect the environment. The environmental destruction that we saw after the Berlin Wall fell and the environmental damage created by Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1992 suggest that the best way to advance toward clean environment is liberal democracy, for the technology generated by that social world will preserve the natural world. We do not face a crisis that is of such a nature that we must “save creation,” for the only part of the earth under threat at all is humanity. The earth will go on, no matter what humanity does to itself. Humanity did not bring the universe into existence. It cannot bring even this tiny planet to its death. Although some environmentalists have accused Jews and Christians of forming the theological background for the abuse of creation with its vision of humanity having dominion over the earth, we find far greater polluters and over-population among primitive cultures and military dictatorships. The increase in food production requires the increase of freedom and thus of liberal democracy. The same is true of birth control, for the dependence of liberal democracy upon the nuclear family trends toward smaller families as adults make decisions about what is best for them.
Some people condemn Christianity for the ecological crisis that they sense in the world. However, only in the 1700’s did the commission given to human beings in Genesis 1-2 come to represent to scholars unlimited power to dispose of nature. This happened at the time when modern humanity in its self-understanding cut off its ties with the creator God of the bible. It is incorrect to charge Western Christianity as a whole with this distortion of the biblical commission of domination, this failure to recognize the role of human beings as fiduciaries. Only the emancipation of modern humanity from biblical revelation that turned the biblical commission of domination into a subjugation of nature to human beings on their own authority and for their own arbitrary use. The high value that the bible places upon human life does not necessarily lead to contempt for nonhuman nature. In fact, the modern principle of human autonomy guarantees nature far less protection against its limitless exploitation by human beings than does a Christian understanding of humanity.
Technology has led to fewer acres suffering erosion and larger forested acres today than in the mid-1800. Yet, many environmentalists continue to believe that technology is destroying the environment. They refuse to face the fact that the more economically advanced a nation is the cleaner is the environment. Totalitarian regimes and poor countries live in greater environmental crisis than the industrialized West. Wealthier is healthier. Wealthier means the ability to provide for large families, live suburban lifestyles, use goods requiring long haul transport, and otherwise act in ways deemed wrong by many environmentalists.
If we are concerned about the environment, the church needs to favor the expansion of liberty in government and economics. Unfortunately, that is the not the conclusion of environmental leaders. Maurice Strong said that "Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease." The political agenda involves expanding government control over the economy, including businesses and consumers. They do not trust the masses to make wise decisions to protect themselves and their environment. The elite must guide them through an increasingly activist government. Any opposed to them are not just wrong. They are immoral.
Churches have become part of the political debate. Protestant denominations, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Philadelphia Board of Rabbis, all advocate proper stewardship of the environment. No one opposes that. Such theological language, however, disguises the motive of expanding the role of government in business and personal life. I suppose that some would argue that if God wants us to care about something, then, we must put that something under government control. That is not my position.
The debate has even shifted to the concept of animal rights. I have several problems here. One is that the Constitution guarantees rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who eats meat knows that an animal does not have the right to life. Anyone who owns a pet knows that an animal does not have the right to liberty. Anyone who has a pet knows that the happiness of the owner is before the happiness of the pet. Humanity is the only part of life on earth that has a history that can be chronicled and which can be said to improve over time.
My own
solution to the concept of the endangered species is the free market. In southern
We share the moral concern for our environment. What we do not share is that an expanding and activist federal government will be an adequate response to this concern. We need to recover the art of moral persuasion. We need to recover a trust in the masses that they also have wisdom to deal with such moral dilemmas. The solution may not always by an activist government. The solution may be less government, and more responsibility assumed by the people.
The
use of natural resources that accompanies modern growth protects that which
creates income. Thus, it protects farmable land, it will protect air and water,
and it will protect renewable resources (whether trees or animals) as long as
they continue to have value. We can observe this in the difference in
ecological care taken in the
Mark 15:33-40 (NRSV)
33 When it was
40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
Matthew 5:43-44 (NRSV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Romans 12:17-19 (NRSV)
17 Do not
repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of
all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live
peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave
room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,
says the Lord.”
1 Peter 3:8-9 (NRSV)
8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind. 9 Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing.
Matthew 5:23-24 (NRSV)
23 So
when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother
or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before
the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come
and offer your gift.
John 8:1-11 (NRSV)
1 while
Jesus went to the
This issue is a good example of one in which the only way the church can give any response is through political institutions. I do not want to give a full exposition on the issue. Rather, I want to offer some hints of a possible way to treat the apostolic witness.
The selection of texts suggests the direction I would move on this matter. I do not find the Old Testament helpful in considering matters of Christian ethics. In particular, I would consider capital punishment as quite inconsistent with the New Testament. Jesus made it clear that the law and prophets hang on love toward God and neighbor. This suggests that if a behavior is not consistent with such love, Christians need to set it aside, even if commanded in the Old Testament.
I find it rather difficult for us as Christians to consider capital punishment as a just use of government power, while at the same time we honor Christ, whom government killed through unjust legal proceedings. Further, the value of every individual life ought to be primary on the agenda of the church. The fact that Jesus does not recommend the death penalty for an act punishable by death also ought to be normative.
However, such considerations do not address the true concerns of many in our society and many in the church. I have had members of the parishes I serve have children murdered, and the murderer is free to engage in communal life. When I see men who abduct children and then murder them, what I want is for that person to die immediately. When authorities arrested that person several times for robbery, rape, and other crimes, and finally murders, I want American justice to have radical surgery. I also want the church to be angry about the loss of innocent life that criminals perpetrate upon our neighbors.
The question is whether the justice system will protect society from violent persons. Frankly, I think the church on this point needs to stand strongly with the victims of crime. Our love for our neighbors needs to extend to putting a barrier between the neighbor and those who have no moral problem with doing harm. If the church were to stand firmly against taking a human life through execution, it must also stand for isolating violent criminals from the rest of society. I would argue that opposition to capital punishment and standing with potential victims of crime must go together in terms of the witness of the church to society.
I write these things, recognizing that many Christians would find profound disagreement with me at a political level.
The matter
of non-resistance on which Jesus insisted has a specific social and cultural
context that we need to consider before we can discern the norm for Christian
behavior it suggests. Ambrose and Augustine suggested this meant that no
Christian could defend oneself from violence, for this would harm genuine love
toward the neighbor. However, one could act to defend one’s neighbor. A further
problem arises when abstracting the non-resistance taught Jesus to another
cultural setting, the matter of pacifism arises as a national policy. When we
recognize the teaching of Jesus as a strategy for dealing with the specific
circumstance of the occupation of
We need to
consider whether anything can justify the response of war. Can the other be so
violent that it justifies violence, with the promise that on the other side we
will get to a more peaceful place? My assumption is that the pacifist would
answer in the negative, tacitly suggesting the moral equivalency of all
violence. The pacifist elevates non-violence into a moral absolute, applicable
to all times, places, and cultures. My assumption is that those who answer in
the positive do not want peace less than the pacifist does. Rather, they
believe that certain occasions require a violent response in order to get to a
peaceful and just place, and thus assume that we can make moral distinctions in
the use of violence. Non-violence may actually increase the potential for lack
of peace in a land, and thus becomes an ineffective means to accomplish its
worthy end. Pacifism wills the demise of the State in which the pacifist lives.
That demise will occur through the emergence of violence. Consequently, one
needs to make the judgment of whether one’s society is one for which one
willingly fights.
I want to
be quite clear on one point. It matters what type of system one defends. While
no system embodies the future rule of God, a modern culture is not simple
principalities ruled by demonic powers. In a provisional way, modernity allows
for the flourishing of enough respect for individuality, freedom, equality,
fraternity, peace, and justice, that I believe many Christians justly defend
it. We might say that democratic societies are in principle non-violent and
therefore represent the redemption of principalities and powers. However, if
one defends an oppressive state, a communist state, a dictatorship, a fascist
state, one may well simply be caught up in an evil system and have few options.
However, one still participates in that evil by defending it. I would suggest
that pacifism would be a legitimate response if one lived in such a political
system. The question for pacifism is whether any social system is worthy of
defense. Such a position assumes the moral equivalency of every social world.
God is on the side of all humanity, and desires the best for humanity. In God,
humanity has a partner in moving toward the best possible human life. Clearly,
we need to deal with whether some systems of social organization move us toward
that best possible human life, and whether some systems of social organization
bring us further from that purpose. My position should be clear. Anyone who
would deprive the modern social world, and democratic society itself, of the
tools to defend itself in the world in which we live today, does not have any
love for their country. They want its destruction. Anyone who promotes pacifism
for a democratic society in this human world hates the system and the country
in which he or she live.
Many things
should chasten and temper the pride that I hope we can have, but nothing a
nation has done should make it impossible for a constitutional democracy to
regain self-respect. One of the gifts of modern civilization is its capacity to
change. Civilizations once given to colonialism no longer practice it. The same
is true of slavery. To say that certain acts do make this impossible is to
abandon the importance of our being agents of history and those who shape our
future. We would place ourselves upon the sideline of history. No country ever
has been pure.
Suppose
that
The modern
democratic, pluralist, secular, political state is not just a set of
institutions. It represents regard for the worth and dignity of individuals in
such a way that each individual may pursue his or her best plan of life. It
represents the ideas of liberty, pluralism, and justice. Patriotism toward this
kind of government is how we internalize the common good toward which the
government strives. We participate in the public discussion of political
affairs, pay taxes, and serve in the military. We identify with the common ends
of the social world as embodied in the modern political state – in particular,
its promotion of freedom.
People do
not always exercise power for the sake of domination. People also exercise
power as acting in concert, acting together, as a consensus. Power can operate
in the realm of inter-subjectivity and common action. Together people have a
capacity for power that they would not otherwise have. This exercise of power
supposes common understandings between the partners engaged in dialogue. As we
actualize ourselves as individuals and as social members, we experience community
at more profound levels than we may know consciously or intentionally.
War
presupposes peace; it does not represent the first event of the encounter. The
status of the human implies fraternity and the idea of the human race. Human
fraternity has two aspects. First, it involves individualities whose logical
status is not reducible to the status of ultimate differences in a genus, for
their singularity consists in each referring to itself. Second, it also
involves the commonness of a Father, as though the commonness of race would not
bring together enough. Society must be a fraternal community to be commensurate
with the straightforwardness in which the face of the other presents itself to
my welcome.
Further,
the international situation with independent and competing nations remains a
dangerous place. Intellectuals have long
had the dream that the various nations could abide by certain principles. We have not yet discovered principles,
consistent with human nature, to bring peace and justice between nations,
outside of encouraging every nation to become a liberal democracy. We justly ridicule the utopian hopes for a
world government or league of peoples that will bring perpetual peace, along
with the moral improvement of the entire human race. We can achieve world peace, but only as
individual governments respect the rights of their citizens and institute
participatory democracy.
The advent
of the modern political state has brought the horrors of war on a massive
scale. War is a normal feature of the modern political state, for it is a
permanent part of human existence. The principle of pluralism and
self-determination dismisses the idea that a world state could prevent the
outbreak of war. Individual states and movements will always have the possibility
of using their freedom to resolve disputes violently. The plurality of national
peoples in whom the human desire for worth and dignity has actualized itself
precludes the existence of a true world state. Individual states actualize
themselves by distinguishing themselves from each other and attain recognition
as to their independent status in relation to each other. Nations face each
other as sovereign powers with no higher power between them capable of
enforcing the peaceful settlement.
The possibility
of war arises out of the natural course of international relations. War is a
failure of human social life. Each nation has its separate and particular
interests that will conflict with those of other states. Contingencies will
arise that lead to war. War has a way of uniting citizens involved separately
in their private interests toward their common citizenship in a nation. Such
external threats bring a people together. The reality of their shared life
becomes clear. It becomes something for which they will fight. The social bond
of a people, often not perceived in time of peace, becomes clear when others
attack their nation. From a somewhat pessimistic perspective, history may
suggest that war appears necessary to maintain the internal life of the state.
However, this would not consider the possibility of that one day, the people of
every nation will live in a nation that respects their right to form their
basic plan of life.
War is not
good. It is not, however, an absolute evil. War is an evil with which we can
and must live. The good of preserving individual freedom, family, free
association in civil life, and political freedom transcends the relative evil
of war. We cannot preserve the benefits of freedom in any other way.
I have
immense respect for the pacifist position of groups like the Amish. They refuse
to participate in what I perceive to be the benefits of liberal democracy. They
also refuse to defend a society in which they do not participate and which they
reject.
The story
of Dan and Laish in Judges 18 educates us in a graphic way about the realities
of the world.
Judges 18:7-10 (NRSV)
7 The five men went on, and
when they came to Laish, they observed the people who were there living
securely, after the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and unsuspecting, lacking
nothing on earth, and possessing wealth. Furthermore, they were far from the
Sidonians and had no dealings with
From my perspective, this story illustrates that the
aggressive use of force determines world-historical matters. Dan could have
decided that since Laish set a good example of peace, quietness, and reasonable
wealth, and that it could learn from them and peacefully reside together as
neighbors. However, the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. When the
opponent, in this text the tribe of Dan, determines that it wants your land, and
that it willingly uses force to attain it, the peaceful tribe of Laish had the
option of having been prepared to defend their land or to hand it over to their
opponents. What happened to Laish will happen to any nation that adopts the
principle of nonviolence as a national strategy.
Non-violence
is not a good strategy unless it is effective in accomplishing a worthy end.
Let us suppose for the moment genuineness in being against any violence
individually and on the part of a nation. The aim of such a position is a world
of peace. What I suggest is that nonviolence, understood as an absolute moral
principle, is not effective in accomplishing the aim of peace. In the end, it
results in the victory of oppressive dictatorships.
Does
violence ever solve world-historical problems? Clearly, the answer is yes. The
American Revolution gave birth to a nation free of colonial rule and with a
focus on individual rights. The civil war removed the horrendous practice of
human slavery and the denial of individual rights to persons because of the
color of skin. World War I helped end the violence of colonialism. World War II
ended the Nazi terror in
Let us
consider the possibility that the principle of nonviolence is not a genuine
strategy for a peaceful world. Let us consider the possibility that for some
individuals and groups, the objective is the downfall of liberal democracies in
general and the
The
principle of nonviolence that many persons on the political Left suggest is
hypocritical. Such persons participate in the benefits of modern society. They
experience the freedom, they enjoy the economic benefits, they raise families
and have jobs, and so on. They enjoy these benefits through the willingness of
others to fight for their country.
What I
propose is that the principle of nonviolence is not a moral absolute in the human world. I will grant that, if there
is a heaven, nonviolence will be the order of the day. In a human world, we must discern the proper
moral uses of violence. In the real world of human choice, the act of killing an intruder into one’s home is not
morally equivalent to the killing that the intruder would bring if not stopped.
On the world scene, the violence perpetrated by the dropping of atomic bombs to
end World War II, combined with the agony that Harry Truman went through to
make that decision, is not morally equivalent to either the violence of the
Japanese empire or the cool order by Hitler to slaughter more Jews in
concentration camps. The violence had a moral purpose. I trust that the result
for both
My own
suggestion is that liberal democracies need to have a league of nations of
their own to improve their relationships and the practice of liberal democracy.
The failure of the historical
The end of
the Cold War has raised another question. Does the end of the Cold War mean
that the
Does the
I hope you
will agree with me that the assumption of the equality of all social worlds is
not one with which those living in liberal democracies can hold. We must not
pretend the moral equality of all social worlds. We need to have confidence in
the nobility that democratic institutions and freedom brings to any country.
Moral
confusion leads some thinkers to propose that the United Nations is similar to
the Articles of Confederation. The difference is that each of the states that
accepted the Articles of Confederation accepted liberal democracy. The United
Nations is an organization that includes brutal regimes and dictators who need
to pass from the scene of world history. The call to submit to organizations
within the United Nations is a call for the justification of our actions on the
world stage to brutal dictatorships. For a liberal democracy to surrender
sovereignty, even in a world facing the possibility of nuclear confrontation,
would be a truly immoral act against its own citizens. Only the
For this
reason, the
For this
reason, the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations must remain small, while
the
For this
reason, an international police force is not an option for liberal democracies.
For this
reason, an international income tax that supports the agencies of the United
Nations is preposterous in that it supports military and communist
dictatorships in the oppression of their people.
Jesus once said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for
they will be called children of God."[2]
First, I think our nation and the church itself needs to
be honest about its own failing, weakness, and sin. In a
war, it is easy to claim that evil resides in the enemy, and that our church
and our nation have escaped the influence of evil. We live in an imperfect
nation and we are part of an imperfect church. We value freedom for all, and
yet in our history have denied freedom to women and African-Americans. We value
justice, and yet have had to deal with our own biases in reference to race and
gender. We value peace, and yet have involved ourselves in wars that clearly
were unjust. I reflect here upon wars such as the Indian wars and the
Mexican-American wars, which at least from what I read were not
Second, I think we need to realize that some people will
not live in peace with others. Some people will not allow us to embrace
them in friendship. We need to do our part in the ministry of the church to
model the embracing love of God to the world. That love is inclusive of all
persons even those to whom society attaches some stigma. Realistically,
however, we need to consider that some persons will not allow us to embrace
them. This fact should not surprise us. The love of God embraces all persons.
Yet, not all people experience the blessing of that embrace because they do not
turn toward God and receive that embrace. On a national scale, I think our
nation desires peace with all nations. Sometimes peace comes after we defeat
governments who do not want to live peacefully with others. We learned this in World
War II, as our nation defeated the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.
Third, I think that Christianity has already exerted its influence
anytime this nation goes to war. You see, in its better moments, the church
urges the leaders of a nation not to provoke war with another nation. War is
the last option. We act primarily for self-defense and sometimes, as in
Fourth, I think some Americans need to recover a genuine love
of country. Of course, I do not mean our nation is perfect. The church is not
perfect either. Do you love the
When do we
become anti-American? I have come to think the answer is simpler than we might
think. If we think that
I have been
quite direct and blunt on this point. You see, I have confidence in a possible
world. I think that one day every person in the world will live in a nation
that respects his or her rights, worth, and dignity. They will have the right
to pursue their basic plan of life. If that day comes, it will be because the
Every human
life matters to God. Comparing how many people die in certain situations is
hardly helpful, for one death that arises out of sinfulness is an offense to
God.
I
would find it helpful if the church itself would practice peacefulness. I do
not find it credible that the church, supposedly a place of peace, recommends
the use of coercion to take from one group in society and give to another.
Considering that there are ways in modern society for churches to advance their
concerns peacefully, persuasively, and voluntarily in civil society, the use of
coercion through public policy hardly seems in the spirit of prophets, Jesus,
or apostles. The point is that the use of coercion – if you do not pay taxes,
you will go to jail – is not appropriate use of the government as general
principle, let alone in the hands of those who honor the crucified one. Of
course, some government action is necessary on behalf of those alienated from
the economic and political benefits of modern society. I find it rather
incredible that those churches with the largest denominational budgets call for
government to do so many things for the poor, while at the same time spending
their money on salaries and buildings for denominational executives. The church
needs to model the peacefulness about which it talks. Becoming another special
interest group, sitting at the table with those in power, and seeking to gain a
measure of power through political victory, somehow does seem fitting for the
Jim Winkler, general secretary of the United
Methodist Board of Church and Society, suggested that the view that any
justification of war is a false gospel and of fleeting popularity. “The
invasion of
The matter
of pacifism raises many questions concerning the normative nature of the New
Testament as well as the practical and pastoral matter of ministering in a
culture that respects the church enough to allow it to worship and serve
freely. Many Christians in modern culture appear to have little thankfulness
for living in such culture. We would do well to pause and consider the many
Christians who lived in cultures that persecuted them, killed them, and shunned
them. We take so much for granted.
Further, we
need to consider that modernity has created a social world in which people like
Socrates, Jesus, the first martyr Stephen, Paul, Peter, and many others, the
state would not execute for what they said and did. As we look at the world at
the beginning of the 21st century, we need to realize how rare of a
gift this is for the government to offer its people.
Next, we
need to realize that we will have a peaceful and just world when every nation
has respect for the rights of their citizens and defends those rights. When
dictators invade other countries, they do to others what they have already done
to their people.
On a
personal level, stopping someone from doing violence to oneself may have the
effect of stopping future violence by that person to others. Some vocations of
modern life involve one in complex situations, such as police and fire
fighters, as well as soldiers, which require discerning Christian involvement.
On a
national scale, the recognition that some political leaders embody violence to
such a degree that love for one’s neighbor calls one to act in their defense
and thereby lessen the expansion of evil is an important possibility for
consideration.
To complicate matters further, one needs some discernment as to the form of life embedded in a culture that one defends. In a brutal military dictatorship, non-resistance may well be the courageous act. In a culture that values individuals and freedom, non-resistance on a national scale may well mean the expansion of violence and evil. The point here is that one cannot responsibly apply any teaching of the New Testament, including that of Jesus, without carefully discerning the normative value of the text.
Ordination arises out of our common
baptism, which carries within it a commission to engage in the ministry of
reconciliation. Our common baptism, whether male or female, is the foundation
of the call to ministry. It is time to move beyond the old arguments about
women in the church. The culture
conditions much of what the Bible says about women. At the same time, women gained
prominence. We have the example of Ruth
and Esther in the Old Testament. In the
New Testament, women were around Jesus.
Women were there at Pentecost.
Women had a significant role in the growth of the church. However, the culture did not allow women to
fill official capacities within the organizational life of the church. Men did admit them into the corridors of
power. This may well have been
appropriate for that period. It is a
failure of justice to continue that practice today. It is a way to oppress. This is a prime case of when the church needs
to move against much of the bible and tradition in order to remain true to the
vision of the bible. If we are to move
toward just societies, we must do away with some of these unjust practices. It will take prophetic action in some cases,
yet this is where the church needs to be.
One of those places where I find
myself embarrassed is that I must address the theological issue of the
ordination of women. Some have even
argued that, because of the sexual drive in men, women ought not to preach. Such an argument, based as it is on the
weakness of men, has the merit of recognizing the power of sexuality in our
relationships. We ought not to overlook
this fact. Nor ought we to allow that
weakness to determine eligibility of ordination.
The Decree of Gratian excluded
women from all ordination to spiritual ministry. In their 2000 convention, the Southern
Baptist Convention passed a statement declaring that “the office of pastor is
limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
They refer to I Timothy 2: 9-14 as evidence for this position. Southern Baptist rules restricting the role
of women in churches "[don't] have any negative ramifications at all for
women in the work place," Southern Baptist President James Merritt said.
"I'd have no problem with the president of the
John R. Rice, one of the leading
evangelical teachers of the early 20th century, wrote in 1941 that
women ought not to teach in the church or on the mission field. He did not believe in sissified churches, and
that God is a masculine God, not effeminate.
Yet, he also taught his daughters theology and Greek and encouraged
theological discussion at home. Billy
Graham argued, “the biological assignment was basic and simple: Eve was to be
the child-bearer, and Adam was to be the breadwinner. Wife, mother, homemaker—this is the appointed
destiny of real woman-hood.” (Billy Graham, “Jesus and the Liberated Woman,” Ladies Home Journal, December 1970, 42).
His wife also said, concerning the ordination of women, “I personally am ‘agin
it.’ For one thing, I do not feel that
we have much of a shortage of men. For
another thing, I believe that it basically goes against the principles of
Scripture. I think if you study you will
find that the finest cooks in the world are men (probably called chefs); the
finest couturiers, by and large are men; the greatest politicians are men; most
of our greatest writers are men; most of our greatest athletes are men. You name it, men are superior in all but two
areas: women make the best wives and women make the best mothers.” (Ruth Graham,
Christianity Today, June 6, 1975,
32).
The primary biblical support for
this position is from I Corinthians 11:2-12, 14:33-35, Ephesians 5:21-33,
Colossians 3:18-19, and I Timothy 2:9-15.
1 Corinthians 11:2-12 (NRSV)
2 I commend you because you
remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on
to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of
every man, and the husband is the head of his wife,and God is the head of
Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head
disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her
head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her
head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should
cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off
or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to
have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is
the reflectionof man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but
woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but
woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have
a symbol of authority on her head,because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless,
in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12
For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all
things come from God.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (NRSV)
33 for God is a God not of
disorder but of peace.
(As in all the churches of the saints,
34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not
permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If
there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For
it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Timothy 2:9-15 (NRSV)
9 also that the women
should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with
their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but
with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let
a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman
to teach or to have authority over a man;she is to keep silent. 13 For
Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but
the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be
saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and
holiness, with modesty.
We can also assume the patriarchal context of the Old
Testament. It everywhere assumes the
priority and superiority of the male.
Even single women were under the authority of a man. Yet, upon closer examination, the position is
not so clear. The creation narrative in
Genesis means that God created male and female equally in the image of
God. The early church baptized men and
women equally, a weighty matter in that culture. Paul in Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that
baptism erodes the social divisions that human beings establish.
In I Corinthians 11:2-12, Paul
assumes that women will in fact pray and prophesy, that they will speak on
important matters in the public. The
text focuses on deception and false teaching; it does not focus upon
women. The only question was whether they
should be veiled. This is the position
of Bengel, who said, “Therefore women were not excluded from these
duties.” We must disagree with Charles
C. Ryrie when he says that women prophesying in church were unusual and limited
to
I Corinthians 14:34-35, refers to a
unique and specific situation at
Ephesians 5 stresses that husband
and wife alike are accountable to God.
The kind of “head” Paul refers is that of the self-sacrificing love that
Christ had for the church. That is the
kind of “head” the husband is to be, and not an oppressive force in the
home. Further, the context suggests the
subjection of master and slave. Yet, few
Christians today suggest that slavery is a viable option today. Many of us would help slaves become free,
knowing what we know today. Yet, we do
not consider what this analysis might mean for the subjection of wife to
husband. If the implication of freedom
in Christ is that we must abandon slavery, then surely this same freedom
suggests itself to the marriage relationship.
In I Timothy 2:9-15, we have the
strange assertion of the gift of childbearing.
Nowhere else is this done. A. J.
Gordon points out that, “in like manner,” assume the repetition of the word
pray. Therefore, this passage does not
exclude women from praying but assumes that they do. He mentions Chrysostom in support of this
position. Paul K. Jewett says that in this
text, women are to take a subordinate role to men in the teaching office of the
church. Just as God created man first,
so God gave men priority over women. The
focus is deception and false teaching; the focus is not women.
In the Roman Catholic tradition,
Jesus and the apostles are one type of ministry, while Mary is another. One is the model for the men and the other
for women. In the same line of thought,
since Jesus was male, all ministers must be male. The problem with this is the scandal of particularity. Jesus was a male because he had to come as
man or woman; he could not come as both.
He was also a Jew, and not a gentile.
He was born in
By setting aside distinctions that
the fellowship of the
If one takes a purely textual
approach to this matter, it appears biblical and Christian to place women under
men in marriage and to deny them full participation in the ministry of the
church. The woman is subject to the man
because the man, created first, is directly in the image of God, whereas the
woman, and she was created in the image of man.
Therefore, she was weaker and gave in temptation. She could never aspire to the same authority
of the man in spiritual matters. She
must learn from the man in quietness, silence, and humility.
The right of women to preach the
gospel and conduct the sacraments is not a matter brought up by the modern
feminist movement and liberal theology.
Simone de Beauvoir in The Second
Sex, for example, states, “Religion sanctions women’s self-love. But, above all, it confirms the social order;
it justifies her resignation by giving her the hope of a better future in a
sexless heaven.” Mary Daly, writing in
1968 in The Church and the Second Sex,
and influenced by de Beauvoir, wrote that Roman Catholicism needed to be
purified of its anti-feminism. She also
wrote, “Christian ideology has contributed no little to the oppression of
women.” Rosemary Radford Ruether in
“Feminist Theology and Spirituality,” stated, “The sexist bias of patriarchal
theology must be evaluated as blasphemous ratification of sin in God’s name. Feminist theology engages in a systematic
reconstruction of all the symbols of human relation to God to delegitimize
sexist bias and to manifest an authentic vision of redemption as liberation
from sexism.”
We in the church can only confess
the historical fact that the church has erected many barriers, socially,
legally, spiritually, and psychologically, against the advancement of
women. We have argued that we ought not
to educate women, based on I Corinthians 14:35, that she can ask the man at
home what she needs to know. We have
argued that the use of anesthesia in childbirth was wrong because Genesis
If we are created in the image of
God as a fellowship of male and female, it is as a fellowship of equals under
God. The church has always baptized women equally with men; the foundation of
the general ministry of Christians is baptism; the foundation of the call of
God to preach is also baptism.
Limiting the role of women in the
ministry of the church is far from universal. For example, David Yong-gi Cho,
pastor of the largest church in the world, could say: "Don't be afraid to
empower women. If you ever train the women, and delegate your ministry to them,
they will become tremendous messengers for the Lord.”.... Most leaders at Cho's
Donald W. Dayton, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (1976),
paints a different picture of the church. Charles Finney refused to back down
in 1827 when, in the New Lebanon Conference, in order to have peace, he could
have backed down on the issue of the ordination of women. He refused.
Asa Mahan, president of
Many leaders have taken the
approach that women can be ordained, but never deal with the bible or the
tradition of the church that might lead one to the contrary position. In the process, we have failed to instruct
the people of the church in the use of the bible as formative for their lives
and beliefs. God has called both women
and men to this ministry. This view is
deeply embedded in Christ’s own intention for the church and in major strands
of the early Christian tradition. We
must confess, however, that Christian tradition is male dominated in its
ministry and has not recognized the call of God upon women. Women have always been more ready to serve
than the church allowed.
Ordination is not a civil
right. Rather, it is a solemn rite of
the believing community. It exists by
divine calling and the outward confirmation of that call by the community. Therefore, the ordination of women requires a
biblical and theological response, rather than a legal response. Nor is this a question of psychology or sociology. We are not asking political questions.
Groups of elders led local
churches. Given the social context that
we have already discussed, women were extraordinarily active in the leadership
of the church. Among these elders was
Phoebe, who was a deacon and elder in the church, according to Romans
16:1-2. Her role included preaching,
teaching, and presiding over the Eucharist.
A. J. Gordon emphasized that the Greek word is used as minister when
applied to Paul and other men (see I Corinthians 3:5) and deacon when applied
to Phoebe. He asks, “Why discriminate
against Phoebe simply because she is a woman?
Junia, also in Romans 16, was an apostle, having the function of preaching,
teaching, and evangelizing. For this
activity, the Romans arrested her. Yet
another was Prisca (Romans 16:3-5), whom Paul labels as a “fellow-worker” in
Christ, and the congregation that meets in her home. He mentions Mary in v. 6, and Tryphaena,
Tryphosa, and Persis, who toil in the service of the Lord. He mentions in Philippians 4:2-3 of Euodia
and Syntyche, whom Paul identifies as women who shared his struggles in the
cause of the gospel. Such women shared
the ministry and struggle of Paul. We
ought not to assume subordination, but rather full equality in the way he
approached men and women in ministry.
I. Howard Marshall re-affirmed the
earlier statement of A. J. Gordon that the New Testament has no counterpart to
the minister or pastor. In terms of
biblical interpretation, he also argues that the real trajectory is not through
the pastoral letters and on to restrictions upon women to preach. Rather, Jesus and the early letters of Paul
suggest freedom in this regard. The
historical fact that the church progressed slowly in this area, for largely
cultural reasons, ought not to obscure the early freedom concerning women. Today, we can move more rapidly.
What I have again done is to use a
dialogical and canonical approach to the New Testament. The text has carried on
a conversation about the role of women in the ministry of the church. I hope I
have given sufficient reason for the church to be both true to its apostolic
witness, to its love for God and neighbor, and to the present witness of the
church, in opening ministry to women.
I would
like to encourage the churches to recognize the worth and dignity of the role
of women in the ministry and witness of the church. I would also invite the
churches to consider such a position is consistent with the principle of Jesus
in the interpretation of Torah: Torah and prophets “hang” on their consistency
with love of God and neighbor. I would suggest that such a position fully
honors God and the women God has made and called into ministry. I would further
suggest that the churches in ecumenical dialogue refuse to surrender this
important direction in ministry.
I have
already suggested that theological reflection in Christianity needs to take
lace in the context of the pluralism presented in world religions. I also
suggest that all theological reflection by the adherents of all religions need
to have the same character. Robert
Bolt developed a play about Thomas More called A Man For All Seasons. There is a powerful moment when Thomas
explains to his daughter, Margaret, why he cannot take Henry VIII’s Oath of
Supremacy, even though his refusal means his own death. He says to her, “There
comes a time in a man’s life when he holds himself like water cupped in his
hands, and if he lets his hands part and the water falls out, he will never get
himself back again.”
We are at
one of those junctions in history when we are holding our past, our future, our
integrity, and ourselves in the palm of our own hands. This is a moment when if
we allow that integrity to fall out, we might never recover it in the same way.
Religion
has been implicated since
The great
sages of religion have always said that you do not start out deciding
metaphysical questions about God. You first live in a certain way. You devote
yourself to certain practices of meditation, to certain forms of ethical
practice, and in the course of that, you will begin to understand and know in
your heart what we mean by God. You will awaken within yourself a sense of the
sacred.
One of the
things we look for in religion is transformation. We look for a call to move
beyond ourselves, to lose the confines of our own selfishness and our own
limitations for a moment. I think we are wired to find meaning and happiness in
moving beyond ourselves in a compassionate way. Further, we look for religion
to make us better people. We have a feeling that there is some better way of
being human.
Religion
should not do harm in the world; it should make a positive difference. We
should be working now to make our religion and our faith effective in this
lost, suffering, and terrifying world.
My hope for
Suffering
has broken into the American experience in a terrible way. For the first time,
Americans have been attacked on their own soil. The great oceans no longer
perform the kind of protection that we always thought. However, can we see this
as the beginning of an opportunity.
Compassion
is the key. When we give ourselves up, we give ourselves away in compassion. We
pour ourselves out on other people, put other people in the center of our world
instead of enthroning ourselves as the center of the universe. We may need to
defend ourselves. However, we cannot transform the world and make our religions
work for us unless we are ourselves a haven for loving kindness in the world.
That is what the religious person should be. Very often, we see religious
people on television protesting and complaining, and horrified about something,
even full of rage. Should the church not be a haven from violence and
fearfulness in the world?
The
violence of the world goes on.
Here is a
prayer that may go back to the time of Buddha:
Let all peoples be happy, weak or strong, of high, middle, low estate, small or great, visible or invisible, near or far away, alive or still to be born. May they all be entirely happy. Let nobody lie to anybody or despise any single being anywhere. May no one wish harm to any single creature out of anger or hatred. Let us cherish all creatures as a mother her only child. May our loving thoughts fill the whole world above, below, across without limit of boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.
Ninian Smart has suggested several ways that one can compare religions in the world.
1. Ritual or Practical dimension - worship, meditation, pilgrimage,
sacrifice, sacramental rites, healing.
2. Doctrine or Philosophical dimension -
3. Mythic or narrative dimension - stories that provide significance to
the history.
4. Experiential or emotional dimension - enlightenment, conversion,
meditation, vision.
5. Ethical or legal dimension - Torah, ten commandments, Paul's
injunctions, virtue,
6. Organizational or social dimension - sepecialists, class system, etc
7. Material or artistic dimension - icons, sanctuaries, mosques, temples,
cathedrals, etc.
What is the nature of the ultimate - Doctrine or philosophical dimension
How may the human predicament be best described?
What is the character of salvation or healing?
How is salvation
appropriated?
I want to begin this essay by sharing the perspective that I bring to the examination of religions in the world.
The perspective I bring to world
religion consists of the following principles.
First, Christianity needs to
reflect upon the diversity of world religion in the context of its own
denominational diversity. The difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox,
and Protestant, and then the difference with many sects in Christianity, helps
us realize how difficult it can be to define Christianity.
Second, we cannot simply assert the
reality of "our" God. It is not enough to assert that the bible says
something when they do not share one's own trust in the apostolic witness.
Third, religion reflects both human
imperfection and its quest for what is good, true, and beautiful. What is
humanity? What is the meaning and purpose of our lives? what is goodness? What
is sin? What gives rise to our sorrows and to what intnet? What is the path to
true happiness. What is the truth about life in the context of eternity?
Religion has an awareness of the infinite and eternal context of our finite
human life. Frankly, if one experiences life only in isolated or disconnected
pieces, one will find it difficult to connect with the religious quest.
Religion is not a subjective feeling, but focuses upon a force, a will and
intelligence, outside of me. Religion is not something we add on to human life,
but arises out of the questions and concerns of human life. If we turn against
this dimension of our lives, we will be less than we could be. The secular
person does not acknowledge that our experience of the finite world is carved
out of the infinite. It denies that our experience of historical time is
embraced by eternity. Finite and temporal things have are objects we use. This
means that for the religious person, questions related to meaning and purpose
in human life have a broader context than the secular person will admit. Hegel
accurately defined religion as an awareness of the difference between human
finitude and divine infinity. Overcoming the distance is what religion is
about, both through its teaching and its worship. Humanity seeks participation
or fellowship in the divine.
One obstacle for Christianity to
give a positive evaluation of religion is in Romans 1:20ff, where Paul adopts
the polemic of Judaism against pagan religions with a view to turning the
judgment upon the Jews. Paul does not have, as an independent goal of his
argument the condemnation of pagan religions. This does not alter the fact that
he does adopt here the verdict of Jewish polemic. Yet, it is doubtful whether
we should read the statements as an exhaustive evaluation of the phenomenon of
non-biblical religions. The total biblical material on this subject is much
more complex. We find milder sayings in Acts:
Acts 14:16-17 (NRSV)
16 In past generations
he allowed all the nations to follow their own ways; 17 yet he has not left
himself without a witness in doing good—giving you rains from heaven and fruitful
seasons, and filling you with food and your hearts with joy.”
Acts 17:22-31 (NRSV)
22 Then Paul stood in
front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you
are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the
objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To
an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and
earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by
human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all
mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all
nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their
existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that
they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed
he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our
being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his
offspring.’
29 Since we are God’s
offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or
stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 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.”
We also find that Jewish belief did
not involve a total rejection of all other gods, for Yahweh takes over the
characteristics of El, the Persian God of heaven, and the function of Baal for
the fruitfulness of the land. In Romans, Paul in a one-sided way stresses the
perverting of the incorruptible God into the image of corruptible things. It is
a true aspect of religion that Barth emphasizes.
The criticism by Paul is that we
depict the power of God according to the image of corruptible things and thus
confuse God with finite things:
Romans
25 because they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
In general, religions have
distinguished quite well between the deity and the worldly reality in which its
power manifests itself. This leads me to consider the possibility that behind
the Jewish and Pauline polemic against paganism is a confusion of religion, magic,
and myth. In the prophetic tradition, the criticism turned inward against the
religious practice of the Jewish people and the related sense of security.
Misusing the relation to God to gain control over God with a view to
self-security is always a perversion of faith.
Fourth, the religious pluralism of
our time should make us reflect upon the Christian faith in different ways. We
need to become aware of our imperfections, especially our contribution to
anti-Semitism and to the Crusades against Islam. Christians also need to
re-consider the way they express their doctrines in a religiously pluralistic
society. Some teachings make sense when everyone is on the same page, but in
our religious context, we need to consider the language we use to express our beliefs.
Fifth, every religion results in a
universal claim. This means that, although religion may provide some of the
internal connections that a society needs to hold it together, such social and
psychological functions do not exhaust what religion means to its adherents.
Every religion has to face the test of meeting the needs of individuals living
in this world. A religion needs adherents to prove itself vital. Religious
statements about the divine are attempts to thematize an indefinite experience
that we have of the divine. We cannot suppose some pre-ordained progress in a
certain direction, for we have multiple experiences of the divine. Decision as
to the truth of a religion or as to whether the gods in whom its adherents
believe prove to be gods, is first taken up in the process of experience of the
world and the struggle to interpret it. The adherents of a religious fellowship
and worshippers of deity bring the confirmation or non-confirmation of
religious assertions through their experience. If the expected confirmation
does not eventuate, people will not immediately forsake deity. They will first
experience and suffer this contesting of belief. Second, the question of
confirmation or non-confirmation of belief in a deity often stands under the competitive
pressure of the truth claims of other deities that claim the same sphere of
experience of the world as proof. The challenging of the competence of a deity
by another deity and its alternative interpretive potential is not everywhere,
perhaps, an everyday problem of religious life and religious tradition. It
occurs especially where different cultures meet, mingle, or clash, but also as
an expression of friction within the same culture. Third, the demand of faith
that a deity should prove its power in relation to changed experience of the
world leads in the positive instances of confirmation to a change in the
understanding of the nature and working of the deity. I would further suggest
that the second criterion for testing religious truth is nothing less than the
open-ended process of human history. Where belief in the one God proved to be
true in the experience of adherents, we can speak not only of an interpretive
achievement on the part of believers, but also, even if only provisionally, of
God’s own demonstration of deity to them. There are gods that disappear in the
process because their impotence is evident. Monotheistic belief disputes the
reality of other gods. The truth of faith in the deity of the one God is in
question face-to-face with world experience and the rival truth claim of other
gods. I assume that the history of religion is not just a history of human
ideas and attitudes. I further assume that the issue in religion is instead the
truth of divine reality in the deities of the religions.
Sixth, psychology and sociology
need to take seriously the fact that religious people direct their attention
away from themselves and to the origin and goal of life. Deity has priority
over humanity. The participant is concerned with God. The observer is concerned
with religion. Religion is always a social experience, in that others teach us
about the God we believe.
Seventh, the unity of religious
experience corresponds to the unity of the divine. Religious people meditate,
pray, worship, and apply some concept of goodness, to their lives. This means
that monotheism is a sound basis for the unity of humanity, and the fraternity
of human beings as having their source in on Father of humanity.
Eighth, the unity of humanity and
culture has its foundation in one God.
Christianity must have the confidence to share with others the truth claim of the revelation on which it rests. Christians have the opportunity to show humanity what genuine community is like. If they can do this, they will demonstrate its power. Christianity competes for the hearts of people. Christianity has not fulfilled its mission consistent with its own principles. It has used force, manipulation, and power to fulfill its mission. However, at its best, Christianity arms itself with the spiritual power of moral persuasion and conversion. In this, it is similar to its ancestor, Judaism, which has remained "weak" in economics and military might, but strong in character and community life. It contends with others for ultimate truth about the world, humanity, and God. We cannot close our eyes to the legitimate differences or claim they worship the same God. For example, monotheism has had the power to persuade people wherever it has gone. Can we identify the Christian God with Truth, the Infinite, the Eternal, and the Absolute? Should we identify the Christian God with the true God? Christians claim that Jesus of Nazareth reveals the nature of the one God to all people. It is the starting point of the Christian mission to the world and the source of its power. At the same time, the church has shown a willingness to learn from other religions. It has adapted to new cultures and periods of history. It has adapted to the modern world. It is one of the great missionary religions. It has withstood the tests of history for 2000 years. Are Christians ready to demonstrate the power of community?
One way to test such claims is to test the answers religions give to the following questions. What is the nature of the ultimate? How may one describe the human predicament? What is the character of the healing offered by the religion? How does one receive this healing?
The various religions have profound
perceptions of God and truth contained in their heritage, sacred texts,
institutions, and ethical values. The religions do not say the same things. In
an increasingly global setting, people need to develop some tools to weigh and
evaluate the separate truth claims. I would suggest that we move beyond simple
taste or opinion as adequate criteria, and that the pragmatic and even
evolutionary view criteria are sufficient. Therefore, the power of any religion
will find embodiment in personal life, religious institutions, and deal with
the modern social world.
Before I go down this path, I need
to share with you a little about the major religions. I know you think they are
all problems that you wish would go away. However, would you consider this with
me for a few moments?
Hinduism numbers around 786 million
people. It has tradition that dates from
1500 BC. They define their community as
those who believe in the Vedas. They
also define themselves as those who follow the way (dharma) of the four classes
(varnas) and stages of life (ashramas).
They define themselves more by what they do than what they think. They have no official doctrinal
authority. However, its intricate
hierarchy of the social system, which is inseparable from the religion, gives
each person a sense of place within the whole.
In terms of
sacred texts, they rely upon the Rig-Veda, composes between1300 and 1000
BC. The Yajur-Veda (sacrifices) and the
Sama-Veda (hymnal) supplements it. The
Atharva-Veda, is a collection of magic spells from 900 BC. The Brahmans were composed around 900 BC has
well. The Upanishads were composed
around 600 BC as mystical and philosophical meditations on the meaning of
existence and the nature of the universe.
The Mahabharata (contains the Bhagavad Gita as the most important text
in Hinduism) and the Ramayana were composed between 300 BC and 300 AD. Most of northern
Most Hindus
have reverence for Brahmans and cows.
They abstain from meal. They
accept marriage within the caste with the hope of producing male heirs. Most Hindus chant the gayatri hymn to the sun
at dawn. Most worship Shiva, Vishnu, or
Devi, though they will also worship other gods.
Hindus are
divided into two groups. One seeks the
sacred and profane rewards of this world, such as health, wealth, children, and
a good rebirth. This is the way
represented in the Vedas, religion of the Brahmans, and the caste system. One's caste helps define the specific job,
marry specific persons, and eat certain foods.
The other seeks release from the world.
The Upanishads define this pat of renunciation, but also is part of the
ideological beliefs of most Hindus. It
accepts the unity of the individual soul or atman with Brahman, the universal
world would or godhead. Full realization
of this releases one from the cycle of rebirth.
Devotional movements like Shankara and Ramanuja accepted practices like
Yoga.
In the 1800’s, important reforms
took place under Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and the sects of the Arya Samaj and
the Brahmo Samaj. They sought to
reconcile Hindu beliefs with needed social and political reforms. The same is true of Arrobindo Ghose and
Mohandas Gandhi. He used passive
resistance to gain new rights for the Untouchables and remove the British from
Buddhism
has around 362 million members. It is divided between Theravada and Mahayana
sects. The major councils define it. The
Dhammapada is a collection of 423 aphorisms intended to provide ethical
guidance. The Lotus Sutra had a profound
and lasting impact upon Chinese culture.
Siddhartha
Gautama, also known as Buddha, lived in northern
Buddha
taught the four noble truths. First,
life is suffering; human existence is essentially painful from the moment of
birth to the moment of death. Second,
all suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving,
attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. Third, overcoming ignorance and attachment
can end suffering. Fourth, the path tot
he suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. That path consists of right views, right
intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right-mindedness, and right contemplation.
They are divided into three categories that form the cornerstone of
Buddhist faith, morality, wisdom, and samadhi or concentration.
Karma
consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequences. Human actions lead to rebirth, wherein good
deeds are inevitably rewarded and evil deeds punished. Nirvana is the release from the world of
suffering. People must be released from
the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance to achieve this state. It involves cultivating loving-kindness,
compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.
Speculation
about the eternal Buddha began in 383 BC.
The liberal group believed Buddha was a manifestation of the eternal
Buddha, while the conservative group believed he was a enlightened person who
achieved Nirvana. The liberal concepts
prepared the way for Mahayana. They
developed concepts of divine grace and ongoing revelation.
It focuses upon individual rather
than congregational experiences. It has
adapted to changing conditions and a variety of cultures. It is the largest example of applied
metaphysics.
Judaism has
about 12.8 million adherents, about 40% living in the
As of 2000,
about 33% of the people of the world are Christians. Church members total 1.9 billion, and
attendees include 1.3 billion.
Christianity originated in the period of 30-100 AD. Jesus himself wrote no books. However, he initiated a movement that treated
the Jewish law with indifference. He
seemed to believe that, as long as Judaism remained tied to the Law, the land,
and the temple, it would never be free to spread the good news of its belief in
the one God. He also believed that
violence and politics was not the way to spread this dynamic faith. After his death, those who followed him most
closely saw him. They believed God
raised him from the dead, and that he was therefore the promised Messiah that
Judaism preached. The apostle Paul began
the process of taking away the Jewish commitment the Law, especially concerning
circumcision and the remaining elements of the Jewish ritual tradition, away
from the adherents to their newly discovered faith in Jesus. This eventually led to the anathema
pronounced in 90 AD against believers in the Nazarene that Judaism instituted
in the synagogue prayers. Eventually,
the church went on to convert the gentile world to its faith in the God of
Jesus Christ. The first 300 years of its
existence provided a social context where becoming a Christian required careful
consideration of the cost. Later, from
900 to 1500, the western version of Christianity was the dominant form of
religious expression, as well as an important power economically, politically,
and intellectually. The disruption
between Protestant and Roman Catholic brought not only a division, but new
attempts to relate to the intellectual, economic, and political challenges of
that period. The 1700’s saw the rise of
evangelical and revivalist traditions that sought a personal and lively
relationship with God. The 1800’s saw
the rise of liberal Protestantism that sought to relate the Christian faith to
the intellectual, scientific, and social needs of the period. The result was Christian faith that learned,
over time, to appreciate free cultures in which churches could seek new
adherents, while at the same time relate to a wide variety of beliefs that the
church could not accept. The church
learned to live diversity, free enterprise, and democratic institutions.
In 2000, Islam has about 1.2
billion members in 40 Muslim countries.
The word means submission to the will of God. The follower of Islam is a Muslim, which
means "one who surrenders to God."
It lifts up the majestic transcendence of God and emphasizes God as
judge. It describes the human predicament as a failure to submit to the will of
God as revealed in the Koran. One experiences healing as one submits to the
demand of God for obedience. Islam has a forensic vision of the relationship
between God and humanity, for healing comes in obedience. Large numbers live in
the
Muhammad
was born in 570 AD. He taught that God
was one, and that he was the last in a series of prophets and messengers. The system of laws that began with the Hebrew
Scripture, which gave to the New Testament writings culminated in the
Koran. The first two scriptures
developed over time and were distorted.
God preserved the Koran from such distortion. Islam provided humanity with the means to
know good from evil, through the Koran.
God would therefore hold people accountable on the Day of Judgment.
They adhere
to the five pillars of Islam. First is
the profession of faith that "I bear witness that there is no god but
Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet."
Second is the five daily prayers, in which they are to stand, bow, and
prostrate themselves toward
God is one,
unique, and transcendently other.
Humanity can discover the wisdom and power behind nature. They prohibit representations of God, the
prophets, and human beings in general.
This monotheism, they teach, continues that of Judaism and Christianity. Moses and Jesus were commissioned by God to
preach the essential and eternal message of Islam. They believe Mosaic Law and the Christian
Gospels are the same doctrine as that contained in the Koran. They also believe that Jews and Christians
distorted those teachings. God sent
Muhammad with the last and perfect legal code that balances he spiritual
teachings with the law, and thus supplants the Jewish and Christian codes.
They
believe humanity has a privileged status given by God. God appointed humanity as caliphs or
vice-regents on earth, even above the angels.
Islamic theology developed out of debates with Jews and Christians. Then, they debated free will, predestination,
and the concept of the Koran as eternal or created in time. The 900's saw the views of al-Ashari, which
became assimilated into the Sunni Muslim faith, become predominate. This group de-emphasizes minor differences and
emphasizes the consensus of the community in matters of doctrine. Another dispute centered on whether Muhammad
was sinless during his prophetic career.
Moses and Jesus were also sinless during their prophetic careers. God protected them from committing sins and
excruciating suffering. Therefore, they
believe that God took Jesus to heaven and replaced him with someone who looked
like Jesus. He also worked miracles, the
greatest of which was the Koran.
Sufi tradition is mystical and
emphasized personal piety. In contrast,
the legal approach within Islam, it emphasizes spirituality as the way of
knowing God. It developed during the
800's AD. They extended Islam beyond the
These religions have survived the
challenges of history. That suggests the truth is strong in them. At the same
time, they face challenges in the future.
Out of 5.7 billion people in the world, 3.1 billion believe in the God
of the Jewish people; that is over half of the people of the world.
Now, in my analysis of this
situation, please consider the possibility that the modern social world, the
world that values science, democratic institutions, limited government,
individual rights, freedom, and tolerance, is the best social world that
humanity will have. All of the religions of the world must adjust to this
secular reality. Religions will need to give up the arrogance that sacred texts
provide a prescription for how secular rulers should rule a country. All
religions will have to focus upon respect for each other, freedom of
conscience, and the persuasion of minds and hearts. All religions need to
renounce coercion and violence to pursue their ends. I want to suggest that
such a secular culture is the best hope for the world. In that context, is
there a religion that could operate within that framework?
Hinduism will have the most
difficulty relating to the modern, technological, secular society. Its
polytheism, social caste system, and vegetarianism, will limit its appeal. Clearly, however, its longevity gives some
reason to be cautious here.
Islam will have a difficulty
adjusting to democratic institutions and to intellectual pluralism. Its
militaristic beginnings will always be a hindrance. Its sacred text already tells modern Muslims
that Jews and Christians distorted the truth in their sacred texts. It took
Mohammed and the revelation to him to correct both Jews and Christians. The
difficulty of having genuine dialogue in such a context should be obvious. It
will seek belief in one God and one culture.
Such views do not lend themselves to living in diverse, free, and
peaceful cultures.
Buddhism has some potential. It is
the best example of applied metaphysics, which is the way it seeks to make
itself credible to others. Thus, Buddha
gave his doctrine to the world. Its
focus on individual enlightenment may appeal to an increasingly inward focused
age. Its focus upon teaching people to
achievement personal enlightenment and peace provides an interesting touching
point with our post-modern culture.
Judaism has the same problem today
that it did during the lifetime of Jesus. Its adherence to Law, the land, the
city, and the temple, will always be a hindrance to mission activity. It creates an insider and cloistered
mentality.
Christianity has adjusted to the enlightenment, democratic institutions, and science and technology. It has accepted a humble role in society. It has shown a heart for evangelism and mission. It has shown power to address the modern age. This religion seeks anew a metaphysic; in every generation and every culture. This gives it flexibility in relation to cultures and historical periods that Buddhism does not have. The reference that Christianity makes to religious moments in history is the way it seeks to make itself credible to others. Thus, Jesus gave his life to the world. It is for Christians to discern the doctrine. The life of Christ is not an exhibition of over-ruling power. Its glory is for those who can discern it, and not for the world. Its power lies in its absence of force. It has the decisiveness of a supreme ideal. The church will perish unless it opens its window and lets out the dove to search for an olive branch.
The image I have is that of various
schools of religion seeking to apply their vision of reality to their school,
seeking adherents through moral persuasion, and bringing influence into society
in subtle rather than direct ways. The global context of the world today, the
connection established in culture and technology, suggest that the religions
have to figure out ways to do more than co-exist on the same planet. They will
need to discover the truth that all human apprehension of truth is provisional.
No matter how convinced we are of the truth of our beliefs, they are still
beliefs. They do not constitute knowledge. The future remains open to verify or
falsify the truth that one sees today. Religion will always require faith. Such
awareness ought to give all religions reason for humility as they share life
together. They may even find themselves enriched by the encounter with
religions making significantly different and even strange claims.
In the midst of many religions, I invite you to consider Jesus. I will not ask you if I have persuaded you to accept my view of religion.
Though I have tried to be clear in my presentation, distortions and misinterpretations are possible. I might even say that they are likely, given the nature of human communication. I will not ask if what I have said so far has stimulated you to give more attention to religion than you have so far. I will not even ask if you have a higher view of religious persons than you had before you read this article. I leave such matters to your private judgment.
In the concluding portion of this
essay, I invite you to consider Jesus.
He has always been the obstacle. Most Jews of his time rejected him,
though some did come trust him and his message. Muslims keep trying to convince
us that God does not have a Son. Both Jews and Muslims keep telling us that we
worship him as an idol, and both tell us that we worship three gods. Such
statements only show how little they have even tried to understand why
Christians have found in him something more than a good man or teacher. He is
more than the one who established Christianity, which in fact he did not do.
The establishment of the church did not occur until his followers began sharing
the good news. They taught that the
forgiveness of sin and the grace of God gave the possibility of new life
through Jesus. They taught that he was
the promised Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures.
They taught that he was the Divine Wisdom taught by the prophets and
wisdom literature of the Hebrews. They
taught that he was the Son of God of which many religions spoke. They taught that his death and resurrection
meant that Jesus is a unique and universal communication from God to humanity.
Along with all monotheistic religions, we believe God loves humanity enough to
communicate who God is and what God intends for humanity. We believe Jesus, in
his form of life, teaching, death, and resurrection, is that communication from
God toward which all religions point.
I assume the multiplicity of
religion. In fact, I doubt that given
the variety of human history and the nature of individuals, there will ever be
one common religion. Christianity itself
assumes the existence of other religions in its bible. The saying of Jesus concerning loving our
neighbors and our enemies assumes that the whole world will not agree with
us. Nor can any one person who commits
to any religion discover the fullness of that one religion, let alone the
multiplicity of all religions. The sum
total of all religions gives us an accurate picture of religion. Therefore, no particular religion can
adequately bring together the genius and experience of all religions. As I have said before, the only way to
develop that natural human drive toward the Infinite is to become part of a
specific religious community. Only those
who have pitched their tents in a specific community earn the right to consider
themselves as part of the religious world.
Only these persons can claim to help us make progress in the religious
sphere of life. Of course, in
My intent in this part of the essay
is to commend to you the community that seeks to follow Jesus. However, before
I do, I want to direct you to a popular approach to the development of our
religious nature. If my essay only
confirms this vague idea of religion, then I have wasted my time. Most surveys suggest that this is true of
over ninety percent of the American population.
Yet, only about one-third are part of a religious community. The majority of Americans are content to have
a private religion that they accept in the abstract, but do not believe a
community of faith will help them in that journey. They do not consider it important
enough. Religious communities have hurt
them. They believe they have advance
beyond the need for them. Such religion is most likely natural for you. I understand your desire for a religion that
does not require anything from you. From
my perspective, the pious person seeks to see the divine in all things. Even your belief in a religion without
demands is one of the many hints we have that God exists.
Further, I
do not want to draw attention to the many failings of the church to live out of
the life and teachings of Jesus. The
church falls short. Humanity has a way
of corrupting everything it touches, even that which is most holy. The basic beliefs and values of the church
call it to continual self-criticism.
Piety is not satisfied with the present.
Rather, it always looks forward to new ways to experience closeness to
God and greater service to God. Piety
does not rest. Christianity tries to
keep a balance in its insight into the nature of humanity. Humanity is both sinful and corrupt, and at
the same time reflects the image of God.
Therefore, Christianity recognizes that it will not rule the earth in
the matter of religion. Nothing would be
more contrary to the spirit of Jesus than to force obedience to the church and
its beliefs and values. People are far
too self-willed and diverse for that.
However, Christianity will not cease to make converts and love people
into a relationship with Jesus. We shall
not cease to make every effort to persuade the minds and hearts of our
neighbors on this planet that they need Jesus.
Most Americans have met Jesus
before. They heard about Jesus as
children, whether they grew up in the church or not. He is part of western culture. They have some
impression of Jesus, no matter how vague.
For many people, that early image of Jesus remains with them into their
adult life. Some hold to it with deep
conviction, combined with personal devotion or rigid doctrinal positions. Others developed problems with that
image. That early image of Jesus no
longer made sense. No alternative image
could replace it. Such reflections often led to indifference or rejection
toward the Christian faith of their childhood.
I grant
that only the end of history reveals truth. The temporary success of evil
always makes history ambiguous. The gods of the Babylonians, like Marduk,
claimed to have great power. The success
of the people who believed proved such power.
Marduk had to prove to be who he claimed to be in the experience of
those who worshipped him. Yahweh, God of
Israel, became a questionable deity because of the exile of
Monotheism
is a powerful idea about God.
Polytheism, animism, and other forms of religion fall away when people
proclaim this view of God. This fact contributes to the concept of one
humanity, a universal fraternity in which we need to respect the lively
differences between us. Unfortunately, it can also lead to the idea of one
culture ordained by one religion. Yet, the possibilities of belief in one God
who is the source of all culture and the variety of ethnic groups and
traditions suggest that the one God enjoys the diversity of human life. This
historical reality suggests that a belief in one God is a fundamental concept
for any religion to maintain if it hopes to gain a fair hearing in the present
time as well as in the future.
The
monotheistic religions are few: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism has not shown itself able to maintain
a missionary zeal. Islam has not shown itself comfortable with pluralism and
democracy and free enterprise, as well as modern technology and science. It seems to desire the use of the power of
the State to enforce Islamic culture.
Therefore, it has not shown an ability to tolerate other beliefs when it
is in the majority. Humanity seems to experiment and learn along the way as a
community. Deeply held beliefs in the
past no longer exist, as in the areas of religion (Marduk, Mythra, etc.) or in
science (alchemy, earth is flat), or in government (divine right of kings) or
in economics (feudalism, socialism).
Such past "truths" no longer capture the imagination of our
time. History becomes the final arbiter
of truth. History is the record of human
experience, testing hypotheses and discovering what works. Humanity has made
progress from primitive beginnings.
Progress is obvious in the areas of science, technology, mathematics,
philosophy and religion. Humanity has
made vast improvements in such areas that transcend cultures and periods of
history. We can only assume that such advances will continue, beyond our
wildest dreams. We recognize in
ourselves that beliefs deeply held at one period of life change over time. We form perspectives early in life, yet we
can alter them later through experience and changes of perspective. Our lives are open to the unfolding realities
of our own personal histories.
Truth, however, transcends culture and transcends periods of history. If we view history as revelation, then there are some provisional conclusions we can draw now about Truth. God is one. Pluralism has replaced tyranny and absolutism in belief. We acknowledge today the superiority of competition in the marketplace of ideas. Democracy has replaced totalitarianism and dictatorship. There is a liberation of the people from the tyranny of the church and the tyranny of the political and military state. Free enterprise has replaced feudalism and socialism in economics. The economic marketplace has replaced the strictures of a hierarchy and patronage. Society has a responsibility to the poorest of its members, rather than increasing their misery by oppression of the helpless. Personal responsibility for providing for one self, one's family, and ethical action toward one another, and a recognition of social responsibility. Such truths transcend culture and time.
In this context, I hope you will consider Jesus. The statement by Josephus has more insight than many might suspect; "those who had loved him previously (that is, before the crucifixion) did not cease to do so." Being a Christian may be as simple as continuing to love Jesus. In the end, the personal decision to follow Jesus will always be a matter of faith. To see God at work in Jesus of Nazareth will always be a risk. To see Jesus as significant for my happiness and way of life today will always be a risk. To see Jesus as significant enough to share the good news with others, will always be a risk. In Jesus, Christianity invites people to look at life in a new way, shift their way of behaving and thinking, and adopt a new center for their lives. His parables invite us to see the kingdom all around us, and yes even in Jesus. His sayings point the way to challenging our own values, as well as those of our culture. His healings and exorcisms challenge us to experience the power of God directly, rather than through safe institutions. His death invites us to live with the consciousness of our guilt and sin forgiven by God. His death invites us to live sacrificially, in service to others. His resurrection invites us to see the work of God where others do not and to experience explosive power. 1,968 years have passed since he died. They are testimony enough that he was a holy man, deserving of the many that love him and follow him.