BEYOND RIGHT AND WRONG- Part 1

“All things appear as in a distorted mirror if they are not seen and recognized in God.”(Bonheoffer, Ethics)

In many ways, the topic of ethics is the cornerstone of my recovery in Christianity. When I explore modern, theoretical aspects of Christian theology and culture I may very well disagree with many parts of them, but despite my disagreements I am able to still find enough similarities with what I now hold to be truth that I could comfortably allow myself to be MIS-identified as a liberal Christian. However, what truly causes me to deviate with all forms of modern Christianity is what is acted out in the pragmatics of the religion. In other words, when I see how the theology and culture of the modern church attempt to exploit Christianity for its own purposes or awkwardly parallels doctrine that should rightfully be challenged, I see that there is something wrong at a much deeper level than what can easily be differentiated as either evangelical or liberal. This inconsistency (and how the inconsistency is dealt with) is an ethical issue in my mind. From a very conventional perspective- how the institution ethically deals with this inconsistency is of obvious concern to me. But what is of greater importance to me is the lack of ethical development and is promotion of ethical development within the institution. And as I have stated in previous entries, it isn’t that there are not individuals would demonstrate maturity, but that institutionalism (as an invisible force) does all that it can to keep people from maturity.

It is important to differentiate between two terms at this point that can make what I just wrote appear unjust. It is not my contention that the church is immoral. In fact, with the exception of obvious individuals and circumstances, the institution of church and those who worship there are very moral. Morality, as I identify it, is consistency with an internal and possibly community belief systems. This can be seen as a doctrinal alliance, but it does go further than that and be what motivates one to “do the right thing.” Ethics, while also playing a significant role in what motivates us to do the right thing, is more concerned with the complexities of the situation and dynamic relationship between our own morality and context in which the situation presents itself. At a very real level, ethics exist within cognitive domain. You may disagree with the definitions I’ve given to each, but the idea that there is a difference between personal and community standards of conduct exist regardless. For my own faith development this is important because it demonstrates an internal tension as well as an external tension between what is right and what is acceptable: what is the right thing to do and what one has the right to do.

The concept that developmental tension is a critical element of ethical behavior is supported in many areas outside of theology, while still being consistent with biblical concepts of maturation. For example, Lawrence Kohlberg developed a method of identifying the ethical developmental stage of individuals along a six stage continuum. In his qualitative analysis, he measured how participants reasoned in coming to an ethical conclusion. He was not particularly interested in the decision an individual came to, but simply the process that helped that person shape his or herr decision. The six stages range from Pre-Conventional’s Obedience and Punishment Orientation which, as the name suggests, motivates decisions on how to avoid punishment to Post-Conventional’s Universal Ethical Principles which meant that participants came to determining what was ethical based on a Principled Conscience. James Rest later developed the model into a quantitative instrument that measured the Bedrock Cognitive Schema of Moral Reasoning, which incidentally is the instrument I used for my dissertation. I mention Kohlberg’s work because I think that it illustrates very well that having strong morals, while valuable, do not necessarily mean that an individual demonstrates a mature ethical developmental stage.

As I look back to see what was the thing that first set me on the path that I am now on spiritually, I can say that Ethics by Dietrich Bonhoeffer was that catalyst. When I first read that book I never knew that it would have such a long-lasting impact on my spiritual development or so radically change the way that I viewed the church. The premise of the book is that within modern Christianity, ethics are built on the absolutism and rationalism of Aristotle and Kant. He argued that this prevailing approach was not only flawed in that it deviated from the practice of Christ in making ethical decisions, but that it was egocentric. It was not his intention to argue against the value of morality, but that when we rely on such a fragile understanding of what is ethical that we are subject to the infinite consequences that may or may not result from that decision. From this perspective, the purpose of ethics is to align one’s morality with difficult decisions, not to do what is right. In order to do what is ethical, according to Bonheoffer, is not to ensure that it is moral, but that it is obedient. Because of this, ethics rests in the context of community, not abstractions. In essence, Bonhoeffer felt that the foundation of ethical behavior rested in how the reality of the world and how the reality of God are reconciled through Christ. Simply put, that means that there is an absolute there, but a distinct lack of absolute here. Jesus demonstrated how to bridge that gap between there and here.

This reality which is found in Christ is what it means to be a responsible person, not in an adherence to principles established here trying to understand there. Being a responsible person will ultimately reveal the kingdom of God but is most appropriately revealed through assessing the need of one’s neighbor and the man of Jesus (which may be less of a dualistic construct for Bonhoeffer than for most.) Because we can never have a real knowledge of good and evil, only an interpretation of it, we must rely on being responsible more so than being principled. Unfortunately, this means that there is no moral certainty and therefore no justification (in advance) for our conduct. All that we are truly able to accomplish is obedience to God. This obviously means that being a responsible person is highly risky and sacrifices the opportunity to claim certainty. However, it offers us a freedom to participate in the reality of Christ. Because we lack certainty in our participation in the reality of Christ, when faced with an ethical decision, we must deal with it directly without concern for the consequences. This also models Jesus’ approach to breaking the law for the purpose of justice and mercy. In its fundamental nature, this means that we must develop our character, not our principles. For as Bonhoeffer states, “What is worse than doing evil, is being evil” (Ethics, p.67).

The ideas of Bonhoeffer are largely built on the thoughts of Soren Kierkegaard who argued that there is a universal ethic that necessitates transcendence if one is to be a knight of faith. Kierkegaard believed, as well, that if one was to base what was right or wrong purely on the prevailing universal ethic then one would be committed to such a degree of infinite digress that it would be nearly impossible to begin. It is then the responsibility of the knight of faith to hold a greater reality as the voice of authority, a voice that transcends what is moral. Likewise, more recent philosophers, such as Peter Rollins, illustrate the necessity to betray what one believes if one is ever to truly embrace it. This existential line of thought that reality is going to ultimately be shaped by one’s relation to oneself means that what is ethical is not always what is right.

A CHRISTMAS ODE TO MY PARENTS

“Justice denied anywhere denies justice everywhere” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

In Transformed Non-Conformist, Martin Luther King Jr. uses Romans 12:2 to make a biblical reference to his belief in social justice, “Be not transformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” He begins the speech with a challenge: “Do not conform”. From there he moves to making his first point, the biblical standard of nonconformity. His second point addresses the failure of the church in this regard. His third point then outlines what healthy non-conformity would look like. His thesis is that the real challenge resides not in the non-conformity, but in the transformation, “A reformer may be an untransformed nonconformist whose rebellion against the evils of society has left him annoyingly rigid and unreasonably impatient.” The speech is an incredible message of not simply being people who challenge the status quo, but being transformed by the power of Christ in such a way that you challenge the status quo by simply being who you are.

Social justice is becoming a controversial word. Glen Beck openly challenged it recently claiming that it is the same thing as socialism. Glen Beck is an idiot, but there are many highly intelligent, competent, and faithful Christians who have also begun to wonder if social justice is a truly Christian ideal. The argument being that when we come to rely on the government, which would be one of the defining characteristics of social justice- those with authority ensuring justice, then not only do we take the responsibility and opportunity away from where it belongs, the church, but that it becomes unjust. I would quickly refer to the work of Slavoj Zizek here to make a point that charity (the work of localized bodies and individuals) is important, but ultimately a necessary evil as it perpetuates the condition of the poor. His argument is that social systems have to be changed for any real change to occur as to prevent the poor from needing charity. You can find a speech that illustrates this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g.

But the point I would like to make for this entry is not whether social justice is Christian or not, but that I am being to see how closely the pursuit of justice and certain spiritual gifts and individual traits are connected. For the majority of my life I have recognized that my parents were compassionate and giving people and I have observed that their particular social and political beliefs were left of center, but what I have only recently began to see is how their spirituality and personality that shape those political values. In the process I have also come to see how dynamic justice must be for it to be real. For many on the left, their ideology is shaped by just that- ideology. For many compassionate and giving people the extent of that trait is limited to (while still being something I greatly admire) to kindness. But over the past couple of years, through the ministry and openness of my parents, I have learned, although second hand, how powerful of a resource compassion can be in the pursuit of justice. Surprisingly, the delicate, yet powerful interweaving of charity and justice doesn’t ensure spiritual contentment (in fact, it may create a spiritual unrest), but it is encapsulate the reconciliation ministry of Christ.

As I have explored my recovery in Christianity I have had to spend quite a bit of time dismantling my ideas on social justice. While I value it greatly, I do see the failures that it has to systematically honor a religious belief system. However, what I am beginning to see is that it is not a issue of social justice, but simply justice and that justice is intricately linked to combination of mercy and empowerment. This year for Christmas I would like to thank my parents for the lessons they have taught me about this issue. That does include modeling a political and social activism that I pray that I am able to pass along to my children to even a fraction of the same degree. But more significantly, I pray that my kids see the same compassion that motivates them in me. While I may differ from my parents on a few religious and theological positions and while my own spiritual journey is unique, I will always hold my parents as the model of Christian reconciliation. Merry Christmas to all of you in this season that captures the message of justice greater than another other time of the year. And thank you to my parents for helping me understand what that means.

TUG OF WAR

I am taking some time off for the holidays, but after responding to a thread on facebook today I would like to submit what I now hold to be my religious beliefs. I know that it sounds like I am trying to be clever with this (and maybe I am), but I would still like to read what you think I mean by this and if you can relate. Have a great Christmas!

- It is not one point or the other or at some other point all together. Nor is it at some point in between, but within that very tension between them all.

WARNING, I’M ABOUT TO COMPARE MYSELF TO JESUS

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
(Matt 3: 13 – Matt. 4:3)

From what we know about the education and selection process of Jewish boys at the time of Jesus and from what we know about his early understanding of scripture it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was trained by a Rabbi and had proven himself deserving of such a calling. From later texts we can also assume that he was a craftsman and therefore had yet to become a Rabbi, but since he was comfortable being called Rabbi by his disciples, he could have been well on his way. We also believe that Jesus was about 30 years old at the time of his baptism and that 30 years old is the typical age when prospective Rabbis become Rabbis. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that at the time of his baptism, Jesus had a fairly clear understanding of his “calling”. Due to his divine nature he probably had uneasiness about this calling, but felt confident in his path of ministry. And it is reasonable that his uneasiness came from the way he felt that the faith was neglecting the poor and outcast. So when Jesus went to see John he likely felt a confidence in a calling to a ministry in a faith that he struggled with. When Jesus was baptized it is possible that it was then that Jesus first experienced a revelation of his true identity. I imagine that as exciting as this may have been that it would also have been accompanied by great distress. His entire worldview changed. It was a dramatic enough effect on his self understanding that he went out into the wilderness for 40 days to fast. It was at the end of this fast that he is tempted by the devil. After this time in the dessert he begins his ministry.

Allow me to recapture this narrative from a postmodern perspective. Jesus, a man experiencing great existential angst with a profound appreciation for the ministry, experiences a revelation that changes his paradigm so much that he spends 40 days in the wilderness deconstructing everything he ever came to believe about faith, identity, and calling. Toward the end of this time of deconstruction, when he is close to a new understanding of who God is, but painfully aware of the path of a prophet, must deal with his most inner desires for security and assurance. Once he is able to emerge from this deconstruction with understanding, new meaning, and a peace for what his calling is, he sets out on a journey in which he simply invites others to join him.

I feel that I have been on a similar journey over the past few years. Not too long ago, under the comfortable theology of absolutism, I had embraced a calling in the ministry. I had serious struggles with much of what my faith espoused, but my calling was certain. Then I went through a time of revelation. Not as drastic as Jesus’, but an unraveling of everything that made since. I felt as though my eyes were opened for the first time. I left the church and in many ways felt very much on my own as I entered the wilderness having to dismantle everything that I “knew” to be true. Now, as I have begun to come to some understanding (note that it has taken me five years and took Jesus only 40 days) of my true identity and calling, I am having to go through a similar trail of asking myself if it wouldn’t be better to return to the security and assurance of a traditional calling, one in which I look for a job description in ministry that best fits my interests. I have a hope that I will emerge from this as well with a calling into ministry that sets me forth to live out my destiny. I believe that when Jesus emerged from the wilderness and called his first disciple that the vision was still a little fuzzy. So I have no doubt that I too will not be sure of what it completely looks like.

I end this entry incomplete, with a comma rather than a period because I am not sure what the next paragraph should be. Perhaps I am trying too hard to make sense of my struggle. Perhaps this is no less absolutist than what I contrast it against. But either way I have found some comfort in the story of Jesus’ genesis of ministry and I hope that you have as well.