So why is this so elemental to my own spiritual journey? Because the rationalism and absolutism of modern Christianity allows no room for what is ethical (the ethics beyond ethics). Relying on principles, morals, virtue, or even theological absolutes is counterproductive to participating in the reality of Christ. Those things, while having formative value, are ultimately destructive to our ability (or more so Christ’s ability in us) to reconcile this world’s reality and the reality of God. Freedom in Christ frees us not from sinful behavior (again, perhaps at the formative levels it does), but from the burden of consequences and duty of this world for obedience to God. This, by no means, devalues morality. In fact, in many ways it enhances the value of it. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law. When we strive for an obedience to God as the highest level of ethics then it predetermines a moral character that we are able to deviate from safely. It also is required for us to deviate from it. Humanism and relativism allows us the opportunity to not ever deviate from an absolute morality. But the challenge here is not to act as we see fit, but the freedom to deviate from what we know to be moral when a greater truth exists. The goal in this approach is not to alleviate morality, but to perfect it.
And perhaps this is the theological difference between modern and postmodern Christianity. And perhaps this is best seen in II Corinthians 5:21 which states, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.” Substitutionary theories of atonement easily see that this is proof that Christ became a sin offering, taking our place on the cross. This perspective easily is able to draw a direct correlation between our sin and the sacrifice of Christ. However, I have a lot of problems with these approaches as they contradict many aspects of Christ’s teachings and ministry. (I blogged on this topic in an entry titled Symbolic Atonement). For modern theology, Jesus becoming sin, as stated in II Corinthians, makes perfect sense because it would show that Jesus, because he was without sin, took on the burdens of the cumulative sin of humanity in order to meet the Old Testament standard. But if the substitutionary theories are wrong, as I believe they are, what could it mean for Jesus to become sin?
Perhaps, II Corinthians 5:21 describes the ethics of the Kingdom of God. By the time Jesus began his ministry the Jewish faith authorities had been able to define “sin” as the laws to follow in order to ensure a “healthy” faith community. Through Jesus’ ministry we came to see that sin is not a behavior, but a separation from God. While we still see sin in the context of behavior, the ancient idea of sin had become very humanistic. However, to demonstrate this, Jesus regularly sinned in order to serve his neighbor and love his father with greater obedience. From healing on the Sabbath to celebrating during the fast, Jesus made a habit of sinning. In a dynamic relationship with Christ we too will often be called to sin in the same way, in a way that betrays the morality of Christianity for the purpose of practicing greater charity, justice, and love. Jesus became sin to show us that it isn’t about sin. While morality (the law) may have value, being obedient to a greater ethic (grace) is the measure of spiritual maturity (if there is such a thing). Perhaps the ethics of the Kingdom of God require us to sin for the purposes of charity, justice, and grace.
This takes us to something I have mentioned in a previous post, what then is the perfection of Christ discussed in the Book of Hebrews? Perfection, as discussed in Hebrews, is a track that Jesus was on, not something already achieved at the onset of his ministry. The perfection discussed in Hebrews was the perfection of purpose. For Jesus, his perfection culminated in our reconciliation to God. We too share in that journey with perfection being obtained in similarly reconciling others to God through grace and mercy. The transcendence, possibly, to obtain the knight of faith status that S.K. discusses and a more perfect ethic that Bonhoeffer discusses is through the embrace of the reconciliation ministry of Christ, a ministry that often, if not always, challenges us to sin. So what a great irony we are presented with (an irony that Bonhoeffer and S.K. would appreciate): perfection comes through sin.
Here is why this is so revolutionary for me. Sin, in modern Christianity, is that thing we are rescued from and then avoid at all costs, while for me, being still rescued from the separation from God that is definitive of sin, spiritual maturity (if there is such a thing) requires me to experience, share, and contemplate on Christ in the midst of sin. For where sin increases, there to so does grace. Kierkegaard describes the self as the relationship of itself to itself. I believe that what he means by this is not only that we must reconcile who we are to whom we must become, but that our identity is best expressed in the that “thing” that is experienced in trying to reconcile these two things. Absolutism has nothing to do with type of ambiguity. But for those who have been unable to see God through such rigidity, giving permission to experience Him in the turmoil makes perfect sense. Institutionism (the invisible force that exists within the institution that promotes stability and maintenance above all else) is unable to approach faith in this way because it goes against the character of institutionalism. I do believe churches, however, are able to approach faith from this perspective, but it first must make intentional efforts to reject the institutionalism that largely shapes its governance and structure. But more significantly and more important to my own spiritual development, Christianity (the religious expression of faith in Christ) is counterproductive to this form of faith development. Christians must too reject the absolutism of the religion if they want to participate in the reality of Christ. My prayer is that I can adequately embrace such a reality while in a community that has embraced a similar ambiguity.
Great thoughts! I need to reread them when my brain has fully awoken!!!
ReplyDeleteAs you might guess I would suggest that most of what you just articulate is simply a rehashed form of early gnosticism which sought to fundamentally redefine the Hebrew notion of sin in order to reformulate their response to culture. While the perspective you outline is certainly an ethical structure, it has little if any historical connection with the broad ecumenical consensus of what it means to be Christian. I wont go off on the typical rant about Christ's sinless nature, or his pre-existence, but needless to say what you articulate here suggests that our conception of the Faith is so fundamentally different that it should not share the same nominal description. That's not meant to be argumentative or angry or judgmental, simply an honest intellectual assessment of two starkly contrasting theological/philosophical outlooks. The most important thing to remember, however, is that the conclusions are not tied to either of our superior rationality or intellect, both are faith commitments derived from little more than our individual experience with what we perceive to be the Living God.
ReplyDeleteI am so glad that I got a well versed response from you Chuck. I know that sounds sarcastic, but that is honestly the most thought out response I could hope for from someone with your theological views. I would like to make a couple of corrections to your response though. There is nothing gnostic about my views. Nothing I stated should infer a less than perfect God, there is nothing mystical about my beliefs, and I would say that the core of my beliefs is an absolute rejection of Greek metaphysics. Secondly, and more importantly, I would say that you are right and wrong about our differences being so dialectically opposed that are faith is inconsistent. I one sense, yes. Everything that I have come to know about my relationship with Christ is different than what I understood it to be just a few years ago when our beliefs were more similar. On the other hand, sense what I know "believe" devalues belief, I feel completely comfortable finding areas of complete agreement with Christians much more conservative (even fundamental) than yourself.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't mean to suggest theological agreement with the Gnostics, rather I was trying to suggest a process similarity.
ReplyDeleteHonestly my deepest concern with the approach is that it leave humans in charge ultimately of discerning what is ethical, good, true, or whatever. I think this is THE sin of the Garden and lies at the root of the question of ethics/morality.
I understand the flip side - that when God's will is asserted as an absolute certainty much evil has been committed, but ultimately an ethic grounded in human discernment comes sharply into contract with perhaps my most deep seeded theological belief, Original Sin.
It is my contention that if history is anything, it is an exhaustive and compelling case for the inherent evil and brokenness that is the hearts of men. Whether passed down Genetically, or through social construction, there is no question in my mind that each of us are just "Born and bread this way", with a powerful and insurmountable bent towards self indulgence and self interest. We are all to some extent born narcissists.
I chose generally, rather than relying on my own discernment primarily, to rely on the discernment of the community of faith stretching over the 5 or 6 thousand years of recorded Hebrew/New Testament/ Church history.
Ultimately of course its not an issue of brain power, but foundational epistemological assumptions. As an academically wired person, I've simply come to distrust rationality as much as any other pretender to the entomological throne. Again the choice of an epistomological (and an ontological) framework are ultimately leaps of faith which predetermine almost everything flows forth intellectually from those intellectually unprovable choices.
I figured you wouldn't be bothered by the assertion that our philosophical frameworks are so disparate as to not share a nominal description. My guess is that others might be more concerned by that assertion... Why cant we all get along, I think you and I would agree that these sorts of distinctions are important.
One other note, and this is honestly just sarcastic humor, but interesting to think about. Wouldn't Game theory suggest that the best approach to take as a person of faith would be the fundamentalist approach. If they are right, then God is angry, judgmental, and extremely strict. And so its most likely that only those who follow such an approach to faith will find eternal life... narrow is the path and all that. If those of us who are moderate evangelicals are right, there are still a lot of folks, perhaps a significant majority, for who eternity with God will not be realized. If the liberals are right and God will not reject anyone regardless of their moral/ethical outlook and behavior - then we all get in. Under all three scenarios the uber-fundies make it. They might not be happy about all the others who get in under the later scenarios but its still better than the alternative. :)
But that is my point, sort of. Morality, no matter how well grounded or biblical, is humanistic morality. It isn't until we are able to transcend what we believe to be right or even suspend what know to be right that we are able to enter into the reality of Christ. The question for us is never if we need to challenge our understanding of morality (the true intellectual and rational approach), but to act according to the direction of God. Understandably this opens the door for being wrong, but it also is the only door for obedience above dogma. What Christianity (as a religion) has convinced itself of is that because we have grounds (our understanding) for knowing what we should do, that that is the truth. My paradigm, in fact, requires a higher degree of morality because that it is only place that obedience can come from and not be relativism.
ReplyDeleteWell of course that is if you discount the notion of Revelation, which I would suggest is the anti-dote to the fall narrative. Of course this is an epistemological and ontological faith commitment, which of course can be deconstructed just like a commitment to any epistemological and ontological position can be... It just happens to be the one that I take on Faith. My only point is that any other position is equally faith based.
ReplyDeleteI was really excited to comment on your post until I read the previous discussion, which left me feeling a bit reticent to advance an opinion, nevertheless here it is. To begin with I find that to lean completely on the tradition of the church to date is one of the great errors of the church. I believe that it is probable that salvation and the growth of the church is linear instead of cyclical, thusly as we advance from "glory to glory" there exists the possibility to tread new ground, indeed given the infinite nature of God, it is likely. Thus, to rely solely on the understanding of the ancient church, is to disavow the ability of the holy spirit within the church to perfect the bride of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the "uber-fundies" as noted in Mr. Russell's comment "get in" under all of the auspices of the hypotheticals presented. I present another scenario in which those that place faith in a vindictive, angry God, are given to the "leaven" which Jesus warned His disciples of. I would gauge that given the effect of such a "gospel",which is seen in the bloody trenches of ministry and is in no way representative of Christ's example on the earth, that the god they worship is not very closely related to the one that Christ came to represent.
I am relieved that not only am I not the only one who finds himself wary of the absolutism of the church. In truth the ideas you posted are the ones that I have been espousing for some time now, albeit much more eloquently stated. I believe that in Adam's garden lay the choice, the human element of the equation which God devised. The garden would have been complete without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet God, chose to include it to signify the involvement of man in the process of relationship with Him. It is the return to the garden that He desires with us, naked and unashamed, not because of our perfection, but because of His glory made perfect in our weakness. With the advent of Christ we find that He redefines everything that He touches, thus it seems probable that the definition of sin changes as well since that is what He conquered. Not that we gain "victory" over sin with years of self discipline, which smacks of old testament self-righteousness, that is righteousness gained via works/adherence, but rather that sin is literally conquered meaning no longer a contestant on the field of faith. This truth means that morality is no longer dictated by arbitrary matters of law, but by intimate knowledge of the the One that we are in communion with. We choose then not to commit adultery not because of the humanist narcissistic selfishness of damnation, but the greater truth of the damage it creates in the lives that are affected. The law was written to appeal to this natural selfishness, as opposed to Christ's example of self-damnation of atonement.
Chuck, I would say that the rigidity of absolutism is what inhibits revelation. Jon, I agree with the idea that there is danger in resting too heavily on the tradition of the church. While I have great admiration for the tradition and feelt hat it has in many ways brought us closer to knowing God, been culturally relevant for its times, and produced great men of God, there is little doubt to me that it is also so Greek in its paradigm and therefore so un-biblical in its reading of scripture that a radical departure from it is not necessarily unfounded.
ReplyDeleteOf course Jon and Craig there is nothing novel about suggesting that humans are progressing intelletually and spiritually as we navigate the ongoing contours of history. This is the simple Hegalianism that has been the paramount driving force of the modern philosophical outlook for centuries. Its very easy to be a person who believes such in our culture. We live and breath the air of innovation progressivism. The dark side of course is that its also the reason we have so little respect for the elderly, even as we are aware of how quickly we move toward their status in life. Non-Western cultures have a significantly different world-view.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I would suggest my epistemology is the counter cultural one. I believe that virtually nothing new has been learned regarding anything of moral importance since the ancients. One might suggest with the advent of such organizations as the United Nations and other multinational diplomatic efforts, that perhaps we have become less violent, and more willing to negotiate rather than destroy one another.... but a simple examination of history tells us that those most deeply committed to said hegalianism - particularly the national socialist party in Germany, and the marxist/leninists of the former soviet union, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc.etc. Lead the world towards the greatest violence and destruction of human life in recorded human history. For all our talk of progress, the previous century was the surest argument against human progress in the ethical realm that anyone could make. (And Yes, we detonated the only Nuclear Weapon ever utilized in history during this same period).
I simply see no evidence that we are advancing morally, ethically, or intellectually. In fact quite the opposite, I am afraid that we in the West are, like Icarus, flying perilously close to the Sun, and I am afraid the time is short before our wings are burned straight off, and we succumb to the fate of all other human empires.
P.S. Again the game theory thing was just for fun....
Three points: I just don't see how referencing someone from the 19th century and the 1940s to make my point could suggest that I have something against old people, I have no more desire to be counter culture than mainstream culture, and the core of what I am saying has nothing to do with changing what is moral (or perceived as biblical) only that obedience requires transcending what we believe to be moral- more specifically that institutionalism and contemorary Christianity doesn't promote obedience (or revelation), but stability.
ReplyDeletePrimarily I was referencing the clear Hegalianism that is prevelent in the other guys post.... I just find it interesting how many folks think they are discovering some "New" way of thinking, when in actuality its the very cultural air we have been breathing for more than 100 years. I'm just suggesting that to come to anything other than your conclusions is to be countercultural. In other words, of course you believe these things... everyone does, even those who on the surface would oppose the logical conclusions of your base philosophical positions..., I'm just suggesting that there area hand full of us that have examined the intellectual history of the last 500 years and come to reject its trajectory as being actually progressive.
ReplyDeleteWell Chuck, I think this might be a good point to stop the debate and agree not to disagree, but to continue to challenge each other in the spirit of brotherhood. I really do appreciate your thougths Chuck.
ReplyDelete