David, This is a much need topic for discussion. Thanks for your helpful essay outlining the different levels of questions. I particularly find that if we ask "why" we do or do not take certain actions, we will begin more thoughfully to assess them.

Ethics is first and foremost based on people, and our relationships and cannot be practiced as a hermit. How we deal with the myriad personalities in our home, school, work, church and elsewhere says much more about our values and beliefs than any formal religion can ever say. People should always come first over rules, which I think was demonstrated by Jesus when he was here.

If one realizes that the many versions of the Golden Rule are found in nearly all ancient cultures, it will be seen that it is the basis, or should be, of our attitudes to every other human, regardless of any particular religious belief, or whether we have no god.

The secular humanists (often used as a disdainful epithet), have almost identical beliefs of religious ethics. This is based on no belief in a god, but on our attitude toward our fellowman. Isn't this what Jesus and the apostles repeatedly said: "love your neighbor as yourself"? It does not take a Christian to follow that rule, as the good Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim and Daoists will also abide by the same practice. (Note, "good") which should be understood as prefixing all the religions.

This should begin a very lively discussion, looking forward to.

Dave,

I think you should have analyzed the word “Christian” the way you analyzed “Ethics”. The term “Christian” is not monolithic. The same is also true for other religions. Once a coworker of mine and I were discussing Islam when he announced that he was a Muslim. I promptly responded that he was not a Muslim. He said he was, I said he wasn’t, finally I ask him what made him a Muslim, because he had informed me he didn’t pray, he didn’t read the Quran, he didn’t go to the mosque on Friday, nor had he ever made a pilgrimage to Mecca. He said what made him a Muslim was because he said “Allah is God and Mohammad is the prophet of God.”

Ethics means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way. It is a slippery slope because culture infuses into people’s minds what is ethical in a given situation. Ethics implies some standard is being used to measure the person’s behavior. If the person was of greater value than the rule the solution would be simple, the person’s behavior would be accepted regardless of their behavior. If the rule were of greater value the person would be reprimanded every time they broke the rule. The truth of the matter is the rule and the person are of equal value and therefore there must be an evaluation as to which shall prevail in a given situation.

David,
Really enjoyed your short essay here.

Is the terminology "Christian lifestyle" unusually hard to understand?
The terminology does not diffrenciate or speak to the aspects of human interaction or "lifestyle" as much as it defines the motivations.

Quite commonly we hear, "But I'm a good person..." and it is often true in my experience. But would we then call that persons lifestyle Christian? Probably not.

Christain lifestyle declares allegiance to something.
The proof is, so does the term "Secular Humanist".

There in lies the distinction.

Further, one is immutable, the other changes with fashion and culture.
One was created to unite all men and the other divides each according to what is right in his own mind.

In short, It is no, and at the same time a HUGE RESOUNDING yes.

Thanks Dave I'm sure I'll be mulling this over for awhile.

I like your distinction regarding "what" versus "why." I would think though that various Christians would answer the "why" in many different ways. Some would say, "Because the Bible said so," and some would offer a deep theological dissertation. I would think this would also be true of other religions. Would perhaps levels of moral reasoning offer a more helpful framework to understand the "why" then religion type? I don't know, just wondering.

For example, neither Christians nor secular humanists would agree with stealing. Both might explain the why in terms of an appeal to authority. "The Bible says not to," or "Because it is the law." Other Christians might get into an explanation about the Golden Rule as taught by Jesus while other secular humanists might discuss the importance of treating others the way you want to be treated etc. In these cases, the whys among the groups are more different than the whys across groups.

I have heard over and over from non-Christians friends that what non-Christians find most irritating about Christians is our smug assurance of our moral superiority. Calling universal ethics "Christian values" is a big sore spot.

The difference between Christian ethics and generic ethics is in the substrate or origin. Christian ethics stems from Grace received and is thus consequential and responsive. (By viewing one becomes changed.) Ethics may or may not been so engendered. The behaviors may be indistinguishable but the root or causations may be far removed. Far too often what passes for Christian ethics is merely authoritarianism in ecclesiastical garb.

The Church is the Bride of Christ not His concubine. Tom

Very eloquent article, David. You've succeeded in gracefully putting into words the practical day-to-day paradox that so many of us can relate to readily.

I'm reminded of an anecdote I heard or read somewhere recently in which a Christian asked a Secular Humanist how she could maintain morality and a vivid, passionate outlook on life when she didn't believe in God or a divine purpose. Her only reply was "watch me."

The irony -- isn't that precisely the Christian ideal? That one would see the virtue of a "Christian lifestyle" and be attracted to it?

"Ethics is first and foremost based on people, and our relationships and cannot be practiced as a hermit. How we deal with the myriad personalities in our home, school, work, church and elsewhere says much more about our values and beliefs than any formal religion can ever say. People should always come first over rules, which I think was demonstrated by Jesus when he was here." (Elaine)

Very well stated. The main downside is that the nature of relationships depend on culture, sub-culture, and individual personality, making things very gray and murky. The further you get from proclaiming absolute and comprehensive truth and values, the more synthesis is required to pull things together. It's not all that bad -- there are plenty of seemingly secure and happy atheists out there -- but the artificial nature of a postmodern value system tends to make some of us a trite uncomfortable, at least when we venture into trying to connect the higher "floors" to our practicum.

Thank you for your comments, everybody. I appreciate them.

Ever so politely Johnny A. is putting some pressure on what I said here and what I said earlier about the impossibility of being a "generic" Christian.

Though he did not say it explicitly, I wouldn't be surprised if he holds that by analogy there is no such thing as "generic" ethics either. Each ethical system is Christian or Buddhist or Marxist or whatever.

The problem is that when I suggest that at the level of "judgments" there is little or no difference between Christian and non-Christian ethics, I may seem to be suggesting that at that level ethics is indeed "generic."

I would like to put this differently, however. This would be that each judgment is made by some person or group in the whole particularity, specificity and concreteness of some social setting.

But with Elaine I am impressed that without leaving their own cultural traditions so many people arrive at the same pracitical judgments. It is not that "generic" ethics is at work but that culturally rich but diverse ethical systems agree at the practical level.

So we have what some call "overlapping consensus," which is different from "generic" ethics or ethical "esperanza."

Example: As a Christian I may come to the conclusion that female genital alteration is ethically unacceptable. As a Buddhist someone else could come to the same conclusion without ceasing to be a Buddhist.

Thanks!

Dave

I did post a comment referring to your earlier editorial which I did remove which did ask about the necessity of specifying our Adventism within Christianity but de-emphasising our Christianity within ethics.

Like your post suggested, my graduate school has a polar opposite orientation than where you did your graduate work. I thought it better, considering how I have questions not answers, and that we are able to talk in person, to have this very significant and foundational conversation (for us ethicists) in person.

I look forward to having many conversations when I return home!

Ethics, for me, is a branch of philosophy (or theology). Like science, ethics has its own subject matter which is morals, code of conduct, or the lifestyle of a given community. As far as ethics is a rational reflection on the morality of a society, there really should be no different kinds of ethics. Like science, ethics is ethics.

Here's a distinction between morals and ethics that I found helpful:

"By morals or morality we mean the beliefs, values, norms, moral exemplars and so the outlook that actually guide peoples’ lives. So, one can speak about a Christian or Jewish morality or the morals of the ancient Greeks or the moral worldview of the Mayan, for instance.... This means that we come to the study of ethics with something already in hand.

"By ethics, we mean a specific intellectual task, one that has become a discipline within the university and also in complex cultural traditions. But it is a task anyone engages in whenever he or she starts pondering or assessing his or her moral outlook. That is, the subject matter of ethics is morality, but it approaches morality in different ways... In this task, an ethic might draw on the resources of some tradition, say, Buddhist thought and practice, but the intention is to articulate and propose a normative vision of how people ought to live."

- What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem: Location and the Origin of Ethics
By William Schweiker
University of Chicago

http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/042008/commentary.shtml

Joselito

Good point. I agree with the distinction between ethics and morals, providing we don't hold that there is any linguistic reason for using the terms this way. One is Latin and the other is Greek and that's about it, if I remember correctly.

Whatever terms we use, the difference between the descriptive and normative tasks is very important, as you point out.

The ethics question is not whether in fact some Christians are more or less generous than some non-Christians, but whether they ought to be. This is what I doubt.

It seems to me that at the practical level there ought to be no difference between the two, though they ought to have partly different reasons for being generous.

Johnny

I did not notice that you had deleted your comment and I am not sure why you thought it best to do this. In any case, I am happy to discuss these things, and anything else, with you in person.

To reiterate: In my view we need not choose between "generic" ethics and "Christian" ethics.

All ethical theories are specific; there is no such thing as "ethics, as such" just as there is no such thing as "Christianity, as such." On this I think those who criticize the so-called "Enlightenment Project" are right.

But it turns out that at the practical level Christian ethical theories and non-Christian ones--say Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist--often agree without losing their own distinctiveness.

The more practical the question is, the more likely Christian and non-Christian ethics are likely to converge. The more theoretical it is, the more likely they are to diverge.

Something along these lines seems more adequate to me than a less complex "yes" or "no."

Many thanks!

Dave

Johnny

P.S.: I remember John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite who was certainly no "Englightenment Philosopher," taking on Stanely Hauerwas for being "so negative" about the non-Christian world.

Yoder's public view, about which we once had an occasion to discuss in private, was that since there is one God we should not be surprised if from their different points of view Christians and non-Christians come to similar practical ethical conclusions.

I don't recall if Yoder lived long enough to read Hauerwas on "WITH the Grain of the Universe," or whatever the title of his Gifford lectures turned out to be.

I think this was Hauerwas' concession to Yoder that what Christians believe in all things ought to move WITH rather than AGAINST the natural order of things, as best we understand it. But in my view Hauwerwas got lost criticizing Reinhold Niebuhr, etc. Good start, though!

Thank you, Johnny. I'm glad that you and others care about these important matters. Not everyone does!

Meanwhile, you are reading many good books I haven't. I look forward to hearing more from you about them so that I don't have to work through them all myself! We need to educate each other because no one has the time or ability to master it all.

Dave

Dave,
I've emailed my reply.

I'm challenged, in thinking about this issue, by Kierkegaard's discussion of Abraham and Isaac in "Fear and Trembling."

Is what God demanded of Abraham "ethical"? Is Abraham "ethical" for obeying God?

According to K, Abraham is commanded by God to do something that is ethically abhorrent, but is at the same time considered to be the paragon of faith, or in K's words, a "knight of faith", for attempting to do it.

K explains that the knight of faith is different from the "tragic hero", i.e. ancient Greek heroes like Agamemnon, who killed his daughter to save others in order to satisfy the demand of the gods.

The tragic hero makes a sacrifice, but this sacrifice is intelligible to others. In the case of Agamemnon, he sacrifices his daughter "for the greater good"; what he does is justifiable on strictly utilitarian grounds.

Abraham's sacrifice, according to K, however, is not. God commands; Abraham must obey; there is no reason.

K's point? There is no need for faith if one's actions can be fully justified by appealing to another "rational" standard (dictated by normative, "secular" ethics).

All this raises the question of the relationship between "the content" of the Christian ethics and non-Christian ethics. Do the demands of faith contradict those of secular ethics or is there some sort of harmony? If there is a harmony, do the demands of faith ultimately transcend them or is it just another way of talking about the same thing?

There is also the issue of the source of the ability to do/follow/be what these systems of ethics demand. Can I do it on my own (humanism) or do I ultimately (acknowledged or not) depend on some transcendent source.

These two sets of questions, seem to me, to be at the heart of the issue.

Sorry if I'm rambling! Just thinking out loud...

David wrote:...no“Christian Neurology.” Neither do we offer residencies in “Christian Radiology” or “Christian Orthodontics” or anything of the sort. What’s going on?"

How about "Christian Science"? Isn't that not only a religious belief (denomination) but fundamentalist's belief also? Or is it called "Creationist Evolution" or ID?

Elaine

"Christian Science," meaning the religious movement by that name, doesn't work for me. "Christian History," might though. By this we could mean "the history of Christianity" or writing history from a Christian point of view.

No historian can cover everything; therefore, his or her religious convictions or lack of them probably influence the selection process.

I think we could have equally accurate Muslim and Jewish histories of Palestine that would highlight different things about the region's past, for example.

I'm not quite sure what to make of "Creationist Evolution!"

Zane

Bringing up Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" puts much theological money on the table!

The best thing I can say about K's treatment of the story of Abraham and Isaac is that it is a helpful corrective to Hegel's "system" and Kant's "categorical imperative," both of which probably claimed too much.

That's the best I can say. I say it with some effort because I believe that Kierkegaard could not have misunderstood the story of Abraham and Isaac more greatly than he did. This is because he made its central figure Abraham when in fact it is God.

Why did Abraham object when the heavenly messengers said they were on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah but not say a word in protest when God told him to kill his own son?

To me the answer is clear: Abraham thought the first would be immoral, but not the second. This is not genuine faith.

The point of the story, as I understand it, is that God is not like Abraham thought he was, a blood thirsty despot. The people of Israel remembered this story down through the centuries as a reminder of the shift they had made with great difficulty from the sacrifice of human beings to the sacrifice of animals. This was progress. Eventually, the prophets were able to say that God doesn't want the blood of sheep and goats either. That was more progress.

It seems to me that the content of Christian and non-Christian ethics at their best is very similar at the practical level of things but increasingly diverse as we become more theoretical. When they tell us "what" to do, they are very much the same. But when they explain "why," they differ a lot.

As you say, how to find the courage and strength to do what we know what ought to do is a different question. The only answer I know is that in each and every moment of our lives God is seeking to bring about as much good as possible. God's graciousness is both pardon and power, and it is always one because of the other,

God's graciousness as pardon and power can never be separated. Neither can they ever be confined to some sequential necessity.

Many consciously experience pardon before power and many others power before pardon. God simultaneously each blesses us all both ways even though we often become consciously aware of only one at a time.

At least this is how I now see it. I hope to have clearer theological vision tomorrow!

Thanks!

Dave

Dave,

I think we're in agreement about the necessity of God's pardon and power, as long as they are not used to dodge the use of the ability God has also given us, when it comes to doing what is right. (I like the way you phrased that--"pardon and power", by the way.) As I stated already in the previous post, this is one of the main things that distinguishes between a secular and "Christian" ethics.

I would, however, like to continue (if you're willing/interested) the discussion on the content of secular/Christian ethics.

2 general points/questions (for now):

1.) You observe that "the content of Christian and non-Christian ethics at their best is very similar at the practical level of things but increasingly diverse as we become more theoretical. When they tell us "what" to do, they are very much the same. But when they explain "why," they differ a lot."

I'm in agreement with you on this, but also think the conversation gets really interesting (not that it's not already!) when we trying to figure out what to do with "hard cases" like lying to save someone's life/protect their feelings, suicide/euthenasia, abortion, contraception, animal rights, cloning, etc. In such situations, different ethical systems tell us to do different things.

Is there a distinctively Christian way to approach such issues and how might it be different (or same) from strictly "ethical" approaches and why?

2.) Without getting into the nuances of interpreting Kierkegaard's interpretation of the Abraham story, here's a quote from Kant to which I think Kierkegaard is responding:

"If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion."

The "moral law" here is what is dictated by the categorical imperative, i.e. our reasoning. I think the question that Kierkegaard is asking/struggling with (using the story of Abraham) is "Can/does God command us to do something that our reasoning does not or that goes against our reasoning?"

Two commands come to mind here (although there are many others): "Remember the Sabbath day"
and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Can either demand be derived apart from revelation? Can they justified rationally (by the standards of some other ethical system) or do we take them on faith?

The question about the teaching of "Christian Science" was tongue-in-cheek, but couldn't the teaching of ID be considered as such? I think so, because who, other than Christians, are promoting this teaching in schools?

As to Kirkegaard's comments on Abraham, I disagree with the position that David takes: "that God is not like Abraham thought he was, a blood thirsty despot." Perhaps, that is what Abraham thought, but we can't know; but the fact that he was so persistent in saving the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah surely questions how he valued them and his son. That human sacrifices had been, and were likely still being practiced in that area, in no way absolves God in the story as it's told.

Their values of generation should have been even stronger than today when progeny was their one hope for immortality and assurance of God's blessing. The story makes no sense then, and it makes no sense today. One can rationalize and use faith, but the fact that Sarah wasn't told indicates that the child-bearer was just that: no heritage of genetics from the mother--only the Father was the rightful owner of children. As such, he had the power of life or death over them, as God gave specific instructions that a father could stone his rebellious son.

You are aware, I'm sure, of the 1990s California case of a man who killed his daughter, admitted it, and said that God had ordered him to do so. (I've read the book detailing the entire story.) The story of Abraham prominently figured in the trial and made it very confusing for the jury and other participants. What should the verdict be when an evidently sane person (as attested by psychiatrists) claims that God told him to kill his child?

There are many Bible stories that should be realized as mythical, not factual or historically accurate. This is only one of many, IMHO. Even as a description, not a prescription for us, it raises far too many questions that cannot be answered; and is surely not a children's story. How would you tell it to a child as illustrating Abraham's great faith? I feel it emphasizes his weird obsession and idea of a god who would even consider such a thing. In addition, Abraham pimped his wife, had concubines, and was not an ideal person by any means, regardless of how the Hebrews glorified him--just as they glorify all of their ancestry. We too easily forget it's the "Hebrew's story" no less than Homer and Herodotus are the "Greek's story." We read about the rulers and gods in those tales and declare them "myth." The one who writes the history gets to describe it like he chooses, and while there are contemporary stories, we too easily dismiss them, particularly when they disagree with what is in the Bible, because it was "God-inspired." The Assyrians and Sumerians and other contemporary cultures seem to know nothing of the glorious events described by the Hebrews. No Jericho walls crumbling, no archaeological records of a million plus living in the Sinai desert for 40 years; no wonderful Davidic kingdom. We moderns have taken far more literally what was written than the original writers ever intended. Why? Do we so desperately need those stories to be Christians today? No one today would advocate their ethics, nor would we adopt the ethics of the early Christians in their attitude toward slaves and women. Christianity must adapt and evolve; and our ethics must also reflect that.

Zane

Thank you for bringing the statement by Kant to our attention. I agree with it 100%, though I would like to add a thought or two.

God commands some things because they are right; they are not right because God commands them. I think we need to accept Euthyphro's challenge and make this choice without evasion.

But that's not the whole story, is it? For one thing, as you state, special relationships can engender additional obligations.

Voluntarily entering a marriage generates some additional duties, for example. So does entering into a special relationship with God. This might entail being baptized, celebrating Sabbath, participating in the Lord's Supper and so forth.

But Ezekiel 18 is one of the places where we see yet another dynamic and work. It begins by portraying God as saying that from now on we will be morally accountable as individuals rather than groups.

This seems to be fairer to us; but the chapter goes on to picture the people objecting that it is not fair no longer to hold the group accountable.

Then comes a very important idea: God is pictured as saying that their entire way of thinking about fairness is mistaken, not His.

What we witness here, I think, is a call for a comprehensive ethical paradigm shift. God does ask the people to do things they find immoral, at least initially. But this request is not aimed at one or more deeds or words but to an entire way of thinking, a complete ethical paradigm.

So, as in science, in ethics we work "within" paradigms and "between" them. Coming to the conclusion that we must move from one ethical paradigm to another is the only justification I can think of for doing something we believe to be ethically wrong merely because we think God has commanded it.

In my haste I have written more definitively than I wish. Therefore, please add the appropriate "it seems to me," or "I now hold" or "from my point of view" to the above.

Also, as I have indicated on some occasions, it is easy for me to feel very intense about this issue because when I was an earliteen in Walnut Creek, California his mother killed one of my friends because she thought God had commanded her to do this.

I have been allergic to divine command theories of ethical obligation ever since. If I get too intense, this is probably one of the reasons.

Thank you!

Dave

If there's Christian ethics - that it exists - can we know or distinguish it from secular ethics/morality? Evidently, on a practical level, as Dave argues, there's probably no difference between Christian and non-Christian ethics.

Romans 2:14-15(The Message)
"When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong."

Dave,

First of all, I'm really sorry to hear about your friend.

Thank you for being willing to engage me on this issue. I don't think that you were being too emphatic in making your points, either. I find the illustration of having additional ethical obligation due to a covenant relationship to be very helpful. I've never thought about religious ethics (Sabbath, etc.) this way.

I also like the perspective explanation. What seems irrational to us, in "reality" (from God's perspective), is not.

This still, however, seems to leave the question about the "rationality" of God's commands.

If his thoughts are not ours, than won't they always seem, to humans who unlike God are finite, sinful, and historically bound, to a certain extent, irrational or arbitrary?

I think this is what you are saying. If so, we're on the same page.

However, if this is the case, isn't Kierkegaard right? (I'll put my cards on the table; I think he is.)

God commands us to love him and others and this in the end cannot be fully rationally explained. (While what God commands may not go against what we reason dictates, it often goes beyond it, making it seem irrational or "supra-rational.") God's love is given freely, and not bounded by "reason" (i.e. cost-benefit analysis, or categorical imperatives).

Oh, and one more thought. If Christians are bound to different/additional ethical obligations then non-Christians due to their having entered into a relationship with God, it seems that "Christian ethics does exist"! =)

"There is also the issue of the source of the ability to do/follow/be what these systems of ethics demand. Can I do it on my own (humanism) or do I ultimately (acknowledged or not) depend on some transcendent source."

Lovely sentiments in this topic and thank you for this thought.

A few weeks ago, I came across this essay posted on the Spectrum Website taken from the magazine on the sermon on the mount. The essence the author drew out was that the "lifestyle" should end up as a "light on a hill" or "the salt of the earth". The end result should be and has to be "glorify your Father which is in Heaven."

Sona

You're right, as I know only too well. It is one thing to know what we should do and another to do it. What Paul says about this makes much experiential sense to me!

Zane

Thank you for your excellent thoughts. So, with respect to these issues, it turns out that I am a Kantian, more or less, and you are a Kierkegaardian, more or less.

My question is, "How can we know whether the voice we hear is God's unless we test it by the best ethical standards we have?"

Nevertheless, instead of going back and forth between these two primary options, perhaps it would be helpful to see if there are any others. I think there are.

Somewhere on the the Internet, while searching for my own benefit material on the "The Binding of Issac," I came across a sermon by a rabbi that I found helpful.

He reviewed the two stories about Abraham that are most pertinent to this discussion. One of these is when Abraham argued with the heavenly messengers who were on their way to destroy the cities. "Should not the judge of all the universe do that which is right?" he asked. The other story is the one that we have been discussing: Abraham's deference to God's command to kill is son.

"Which one of these stories should we take more seriously as guides for our lives today?" the rabbi then asked.

My hunch is that the "Kantians" in his congregation would have said the first and the "Kierkegaardians" the second.

Finally he came to his own conclusion. It was that we should not wholly side with either of them but that we should always keep them in dialectical tension with each other.

Back and forth. Back and forth. Testing what is familiar by what is strange and what is strange by what is familiar until we come to an answer that is acceptable for that set of circumstances.

To me this dialectical approach makes much sense because it encourages us to open to hear God tell us something new and better without wholly abandoning what our best ethical thinking tells us.

A problem with the dialectical approach is that it doesn't give us THE answer for every situation. But this is true of the other two alternatives as well. They just conceal the "underdetermined" nature of all our ethical conclusions more effectively.

So, not Kant by himself and not Kierkegaard by himself, but both with each one doing his best "to keep the other honest."

What do you think?

Dave

Dave,

I've never thought about the two stories of Abraham together as illustrating two different kinds of responses to God's commmands. Very thought provoking!

A bit about my "Kierkegaardianism", in case I sound as if I'm advocating a mindless obedience to a God that might command me to kill others, steal, or become polygamous!

You touched on this already, but I think that the story of Isaac's binding needs to be understood in its cultural context. In that time and place, it was a common understanding that the deities demanded blood/human sacrifices. In this context, Abraham would not have found God's command as unusual as we might today.

In other words, God does not command Abraham to do something "he knows is wrong." It is a religous practice, apparently common to the Near East at this time.

It seems to me that God always communicates to people in the language/concepts of their time, but then reveals something that transcends the limits set by thier frame. (Abraham eventually learns that YHWH is a god that provides the sacrfice, instead of demanding it.)

This, at least I want to read him this way, is Kierkegaard's general point. He's not advocating the justification of immoral acts at God's arbitrary commands, but exploring the nature of faith, and its relation to, in this case, practical reasoning. (One of his last works is entitled "Works of Love" and devoted to the Christian command to "love one another.")

Doesn't faith require the assent to do/trust/obey God although we do not fully understand him/her or must God and what he commands meet our preconcieved, "rational" parameters? (I'm not saying that this is what you are claiming.)

I don't want to claim that what God commands goes against what we know is wrong/right by our reasoning, but that there is much more to wrong/right than what we can figure out on our own, even when it is operating "optimally."

There is a theological reason for my partiality to the K with the longer name. I resonate much more closely with Barth (who I understand was heavily influence by Kierkegaard) than classical Protestant liberals (who are influenced by Kant, or at least seem to want to reduce Jesus to a teacher of Kant's categorical imperative and Chistianity to ethics.)

On the dialogical approach, I'm in agreement with you on this, but once again, want to give priority to revelation. There's definately a hermenutical circle (our presuppositions/reasoning shapes how we read, what we read shapes our presuppositions/resasoning) going on when we read the Bible, but to me it seems in the issue of ethics, Jesus' teachings have shaped ethics in the West, more than vice versa.

Zane

I think you're reading of "The Binding of Isaac" is exactly right. I'm willing to treat it as an event that took place more or less like we read it; however, even those who take it as an "etiological myth" can see the same point. If I were a historian, this would make a difference. Because I am not, I can get from the story the main point either way.

So, Abraham has an experience through which he begins to learn that the ONE TRUE GOD does not desire the sacrifice of human beings. Yes!

I don't think I would go so far as to say that God never asks us to do something that is contrary to our best ethical thinking. But when this takes place the strange command ought to be seen as part of paradigm switch. So it is not just the command but the paradigm of which it is a part matters. This is what I get from Ezekiel 18.

I think the "later Barth" depended less on K than the earlier. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone I can to study as much Barth as p;ossible. In graduate school I took the Barth seminar twice. I have learned much from him and will continue to do so.

A student just arrived. Have to go!

Dave

"Doesn't faith require the assent to do/trust/obey God although we do not fully understand him/her or must God and what he commands meet our preconcieved, "rational" parameters?"

That is the same premise used by pagans long before there was belief in the Christian God. Just today, there was an article in the paper about a woman who drowned her 7-month-old daughter because "the baby was demon-possessed."
Isn't belief in demons and the Devil a necessary corollary for a belief in God? It is from the Bible where these beliefs were founded.

Other parents have killed their children as a direct revelation from God, they have claimed. Again, isn't Abraham lauded for his trust and faith in God by following such sacrificial commands?

All such examples should lead us to consider that only when there is careful reasoning, should ANY apparent command, be it from a god or devil, be seriously questioned. Any command that contradicts our own moral sensitivity, as well as God's commands, should be refused.

BTW, why didn't Abraham question God's order for Isaac's sacrifice if he had been given the Ten, as some suggest were known by the patriarchs before Sinai?

Would any Christian today obey a command to kill, regardless of who gave the command? Should we mindlessly listen to voices that contradict our morals?

Elaine

Sadly, some people today do not follow your excellent counsel.

Not long ago we were contacted about a couple in another state whose child died because on religious grounds they denied the youngster the needed medicine.

I think that Abraham should have questioned God--even protested vigorously. We should not commend Abraham for his willingness to violate his conscience in obedience to God's will because he thought it perfetly proper for the deity(ies) to require human sacrifice.

Abraham showed more faith--more true faith--when he challenged the plans of the heavenly messengers to incinerate the good and the bad alike in Sodom and Gormorah.

Abraham could see the unfairenss in this situation but not in the "Binding of Isaac" situation. His ethical blinders prevented him from detecting what he should have.

Again, though, I think ethical paradigm shifts can and should occur. Holding the individual rather than the clan responsible for wrong doing seems like such a shift for me. No longer sacrificing humans, and sacrificing animls instead wa another. No longer sacrificing even animals was one more.

The idea that Divine Commands in some self-authenticating way can rightly require us to go against our best moral thinking without going through an ethical paradigm shift is very dangerous.

You have made this point very well! Thanks!

Dave

David, it's assuring to know that there are others who see that OT ethics cannot be transferred to the 21st century. Much of the practices and rituals that were condoned, even commanded by God at that time are grossly inhumane in today's world.

Which brings up what has been a troubling question for me: The analogy between Christ's death and the animal (lamb) sacrifices of Israel were repeatedly used in the NT to illustrate the meaning of Christ's death. However, in the 21st century, when few ever have observed an animal's ritual killing, and are averse to such, why is that still the only illustration used to explain Christ's death and its meaning for us today as a sacrificial act; an atonement (to whom?) and the most consistent Christian icon is the wooden cross, or even worse, the victim, nailed and hanging to the cross?

This is repellent to some, and has seemed to cry out for a refusal to display such needless violence that may have well enabled the Crusades and Christian warriors and martyrs throughout the centuries who vainly sought to imitate their Christ. Yet if Christians are honest, it should be apparent that it is ONLY, and SOLELY, the Resurrection that gave birth to Christianity. Yet we have so prominently displayed the torture of the cross that the Resurrection fades into the background. Is this the way Christianity prefers to be seen? Do we really want to focus, inordinately, on the wooden cross and not the glorious Resurrection that was truly the birth of Christianity?

Hi Elaine,

I hope I did not come across sounding as if I advocated the justification of any act as long as it is "commanded by God."

I think Christian ethics, however, cannot be reduced to secular ethics because it goes BEYOND what humans can derive from their own reasoning. (This does not make it irrational, however, but "supra-rational" or rational by a different standard than standard ethical reasoning.)

I think of the ethical practices and teaching of the early church. In contrast to the practices of the surrounding Roman culture, women were treated with respect, there was a strict code of sexual conduct, infanticide was prohibited, and the poor/destitute/sick of society were taken care of. These practices did not derive from the teachings of any Greek and Roman ethical thinkers, but from the teachings of Jesus. They were at the same time recognized by many non-Christians as a superior form of ethics.

The way I look at it, much the ideals of secular ethics, is originally derived from Christianity, although justified differently...This of course, ends up watering down the original content, but that's not a bad thing. I'm arguing that there's more to ethics, hence a "Christian ethic."

So the focus of my comments are not commands to kill, which I do not think is the point of the Abraham story anyway, but the Christian command to love (which Jesus got from, and expanded, the OT teaching shalom and justice.)

Zane

Perhaps your point is an important historical one.

I could argue on purely secular grouds that the practice of infanticide is morally evil, for example. But it may well be that, from their distinctive point of view, Christians introduced this idea into the Greek/Roman culture and then enforced it on eveyone once they gained the power to do so.

But my guess is that some of the ancients in Greece and Rome objected to infanticide too, though I have not looked this up.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Just when I thought I was done blogging for the day...=)

Yes, I think there are ways to argue against infanticide (abortion) on secular grounds; there are also convincing ways to argue for it (a la Singer)!

From a historical point of view, I also think that many of the originators of "secular" ethics in the modern West where products of a Christian culture. Kant, for example, was a Lutheran Pietist. (In my opinion, his list of duties bears striking resemblance to 19th century Lutheran sensibilities.)

Oh, the early church to which I was referring is the pre-Constintinian one, before it had the power to "enforce" it's views on others. =)

Zane, you are promoting the idea that ethics derived from Christianity, and there is much to be said from that position.

But perhaps you can explain why at least a dozen cultures of the world who knew nothing about Christianity, also had a standard of doing to others no harm you would not wish done to yourself. Simply Google "Golden Rule" to see the many cultures, older than Christianity who had and practiced (at least to the extent of Christians) this maxim.

Secular humanists have an ideal version of ethics, by placing humans as their highest standard. If, as Christians, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, how is that different? And how can one demonstrate love for a god they haven't seen and yet do less for those they do see?

Sorry, I still am not convinced that "Christian ethics" is superior to the Golden Rule which is not Christian, Jewish, or original to any one culture or religion, but a commonsense ideal for people anywhere to live together harmoniously.

For much more on the Golden Rule go to:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Sorry that I'm commenting so late in this discussion. A Couple of questions:

1) Was Abraham truly violating his consciense by not protesting to God about the command to sacrifice Issac? In the culture of his day, it was considered the highest calling to sacrifice one's offspring to the gods. Considering that consciense is not a static entity, and can be shaped by one's culture and upbringing, could Abraham in this instance actually have been following the divine call in good consciense? I see the biblical record revealing that Abraham struggled more with how God would fufill his promised blessing if Issac were to be sacrificed, rather than the right or wrong of the act itself. Why? Are we judging Abraham's response from our own ethical perspective? From the perspective of our own conditioned conscienses? Could God have been meeting Abraham at the point of his own understanding, and not ours?

2) What other belief system puts forth the ethic of "love your enemies" other than Christianity? I see Jesus elucidating this (and living it) contra Judaism. I see modern examples of non-retaliation like Gandhi's, informed, as he admitted, by the teaching and example of Christ. Thus to me, loving one's enemies doesn't seem to be explicit or latent in world views like Hinduism, Islam, or naturalistic thought as it is in Christianity.

Forgive me if I have reiterated some of what was already stated. I would simply appreciate all your input.

Thanks so much...

Frank

Abe must have heard the Lord's voice/command quite distinctly...more than anyway I have heard it "through the Spirit."

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham REASONED that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

Heb.11:17-19.

Yes, Pat...

All I'm saying is that I wonder if that command truly created conflict in Abraham's consciense...or is it really in our own?

Thanks...

Frank

Elaine
I agree that ethics is not a sectarian concern. The Golden Rule is universal. Unfortunately, its application is often limited to those who belong to one's own group. Jesus' most important contribution to ethics may very well have been his attempt (if we can believe the Gospels)to remove this ethnic exemption by explicitly calling for only one set of ethical standards, to be applied to friend or foe. The quality of a society, he argued, is not to be measured by how it treats family and friends, but how it deals with prisoners at Guantanomo and Abu Graib. At least, that is how I read the Sermon on the Mount. Obviously, this is not a popular viewpoint today--just ask the people at Dunkin Donuts.

Albert Schweitzer, the liberal scholar who became a medical missionary in West Africa, summarized his ethics in his catchphrase, Reverence for Life. It's more nebulous than the Golden Rule, but I like it better. (And it takes care of Dave's infanticide problem.)

Hi Frank,

Of course only my understanding but this man had left Haran after hearing this voice, then in an appearance Gen.12, then vision Gen.15. "Repeated contact" with good outcomes and promises.

So now this "same voice" now tells Him to sacrifice Isaac in Gen.22. Some "confusion" undoubtably but he trusted God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

So some confusion but I suggest not conflict of conscience for he was simply following the creator who could raise from the dead...the one who made a covenant with him previously... contact none of us have had.

Another "ouch" as part of this same thought is that taking life "at God's command" is never spoken of as murder. It is "faith."

pat

Aage

It would have been wiser if Dr. Schwietzer has made his mantra: Reverence for the Life Giver!" Those who visited his hospital in Africa tell of a bug infested rat's nest with live stock running freely in hospital wards. God did give dominion to man and some common sense. To spare the life of a roach to the harm of a man doesn't seem like any kind of Christian ethics. Even Jesus Christ helped fishermen--even cooked at least one following his resurrection.

I much prefer Maslow's hierarchy of need. Christian ethics exceeds basic life support and goes on to self-actualization. "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthenth me!". Tom

Tom

On your side bar about Schweitzer: I know little of Schweitzer's life in West Africa. Maybe his clinic operated under unhygenic conditions but are you sure you're not interpreting his "Reverence for Life" in Hinduistic terms? I find it hard to believe that he would adopt a Hinduistic outlook on killing animals. As you said, live stock roamed on the grounds, and they must have been for meat and milk.

Aage

Whether he took a Hinduistic view or not his life style was congruent with Hinduism. Tom

P.S. his patients and their extended families may have had a chicken in the pot.

The point is that his theology led to a very septic environment.

Hi Elaine,

Sorry for the delay in response; I've been on the road.

To clarify, I'm not claiming that all ethics is religious based , or as you put it "derived from Christianity." Because God created us (with reason), and also because of the work of the Spirit in all people, I'd affirm there is much ethical truth to be found a purely secular form of ethics, and in other religions.

The point that I'm making is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a purely secular form, and therefore, that a distinct "Christian ethics" exists.

Thanks for your links to the Golden rule. There are definitely some similarities! However, I think some of them upon closer examination are not as analogous as one might like to claim.

Secondly, I'd say Jesus' command to love is exemplified in his own life in a way that is without parallel.

I think actually Buddha had some pretty good ideas on compassion for everyone, even enemies about 500 years before Jesus. Of course the why is different :)

I think too, that Buddhists seem to make that concept more central to their practice than do Christians. If non-Christians were asked to describe Christians, I sincerely doubt that "they love their enemies" would make even the top 10. If it is one of those concepts that is supposed to define us "in practice" differently from other religions, I think we have pretty much failed in that area.

On a different topic, I wanted to back up to a comment you made Dave about being fine with the Abraham/Isaac story as historical. To me, I can only move to the meaning of the story if I see it as myth. To think that it actually happened leads me off into the horror of the psychological implications of what that act would have on the participants. Especially for Isaac. What would that do to a son to know that his father tried to kill him? What would that do to their relationship? And how about Sarah and Abraham? How would you feel towards a spouse who tried to kill your child? What would it do for Abraham's relationship with God? How would you feel about a God that asked you to kill your son? And laid bare your willingness to do it?

The fact that he was stopped at the last moment, in no way, saves the story. The damage is done whether he actually kills him or just tries. I realize all this relationship stuff is very 21st century but it doesn't take a psychologist to realize that this act would have life-long repercussions for the family even by primitive standards.

What would we think about this story if it was a pagan story? What would we think about the god they worshiped? Especially if they claimed they worshipped a loving god?

It is a fascinating glimpse into ethics, faith and obedience as a story. As reality, it is nothing less than horrible. A god that would actually mess up a family like that as some kind of test is cruel.

Beth

I agree that even if we take it as "myth" or "parable" the story of "The Binding of Isaac" provides an opportunity to explore some important issues.

One of these is the adequacy or inadequacy of "divine command" theories of ethics. I sense in this story some roots in actual hisory; however, as you say, agreement on that issue is not necessary for this discussion.

I think that if we found this story in the scriptures of any other religion we would find it appalling. I don't know why we should view it any differently because it is in ours.

It is true that the New Testament writers use it for their own purposes as they do many other Old Testament texts. But we don't always take the NT reappropriation of OT as indicative of their original meeting. This strikes me as such as case.

Your point about the strain this put on the relationship between Abraham and Issac is well taken. I haven't checked it myself but I have read that after this experience Abraham and Isaac never again interacted. This makes sense to me!

Frank and Pat

There seems to be agreement that in this story Abraham does not display any conflict of conscience over the matter. He just does what he is told to do.

Why? One answer is that he knew the voice of God so well that on this occasion he recognized its authenticity and obeyed. Another is that he and his neighbors had long thought that the gods can demand the sacrifice of humans and therefore to him receiving this command did not seem at all unusual. He didn't object because he saw no reason to.

I take the second view and this is why in in this story as told in Genesis I do not view Abraham as a man of great faith but rather one of much dangerous superstition. He should have objected, but because his conscience was so perverted he didn't and God had to stop him from doing something horribly evil.

The form of what we take to be the voice of God--dream, vision, impression, ecstatic experience--is never a sufficient basis for believing it is authentic. Only its ethical praiseworthiness is.

Elaine

That we find the Golden Rule in one shape or another in many cultures, happily suggests to me that it has an "inner logic" that people can discern whenever they think carefully about ethical right and wrong. These sages point to this "inner logic;" they do not create it any more than they create that 2+2=4.

Zane, Agae and Tom

I think we all agree that in one way or another Christian ethics is distinctive. So is Buddhist ethics and Hindu ethics and Muslim ethics.

So we have a situation in which at some points ethical contributions of these movements converve and elsewhere they diverge. The question is where they do each of these.

Either to say that Christian ethics is different or that it is identical to everything else is to make things too easy for us. It is both; the question is in what ways are they similar and in ways are they very different.

Beth,

I recently heard of a Buddhist order of nuns called "Tzu-Chi" that is known for its charity work. Here's a little bit of background on how they got started from Wikipedia:

"It is said that there are two watershed events that inspired Master Cheng Yen to take the power of Buddhism and use it to help people in the material world. The first is when she had a now-famous discussion with three Roman Catholic nuns at Pu Ming temple in 1966. While the nuns admitted the profundity of Buddhist teachings, they noted that the Catholic Church had helped people around the world by building schools and hospitals. “But what has Buddhism done for society?” Those words made Master Cheng Yen realize that Buddhism had to do more than just simply cultivate the soul."

(Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_Yen)

My point? I stand to be corrected, but Master Cheng Yen seems to have been influenced/inspired by Christian teachings/ethics, more than the teachings of the Buddha.

This Buddhist order has been around for about 40 years and, if I understand correctly, is unique to Buddhism.

Oops, correction...

"I stand to be corrected, but Master Cheng Yen seems to have been influenced/inspired on the issue of compassion, in the practical sense, by Christian teachings/ethics/example, more than the teachings of the Buddha."

Dave,

So, Christian ethics does not equal Hindu ethics or Buddhist ethics.

This brings us back to the original question: Does Christian (or "the best of religious ethical thinking") = Secular ethics? =)

David

Are they not different in their motivation? Christian ethics is a consequenial ethics--a life style built on gratitude for the redemptive love of God. All others stems from a works, achievement or advantage making assumption.

I serve a risen Savior in rejoicing not out of obligation. Thus, I greet my fellow as Christ would. Thus I served my country and my God in the South Pacific without a weapon. I bound up the wounds of G.I's and prisoners with the same care.

Tom

Genesis 22:1 "After all this, God tested Abraham."

Does a teacher test without preparation? Would a righteous mentor?

It seems that God was leading Abraham to higher and higher levels of understanding about Himself and the preceding events in Abraham's life were ethical dilemnas that Abraham was led through to prepare him for this ultimate test.

Two events correspond with this test of sacrificing Isaac- the Sodom and Gomorrah story mentioned above which was successfully passed by Abraham in appealing to individual justice based on God's sense of ultimate justice. (And God went even further- saving the three individuals, and not collectively destroying them because they were under the quota of 10-Abraham's number)And the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael- which was at the command of God supporting Sarah's decision- a "killing" (exile into the wilderness, cut off of all relations) of Abraham's biological firstborn. So the idea of death of innocents and death of one's own son were both themes that had been presented to Abraham before this ultimate ethical dilemna that synthesized the two.

One solution can be revealed by tying those two events to Isaac's dilemna. The innocent were spared, and Ishmael was given up by Abraham to God, at the command of God without direct murder. Could that have been the logical solution made available to Abraham by God before God then tested him?

So, to the command- to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering- could not Abraham have argued (as he was rewarded for doing before)with God and obeyed the intent/essence of the burnt offering- a complete relinquishment of the son by negotiating with God that he would release/relinquish Isaac to God completely at the mountain of Moriah and leave him there, but would not kill an innocent being. Leaving it up to God to do with Isaac as God did with Ishmael? From Abraham's viewpoint- this would have been the ultimate sacrifice without the evil act. A triumph of faith and reason without tension.

But Abraham so idolized Isaac and knew his wife did too, that the pain of relinquishment blocked out the previous lessons God had brought him through. And Abraham failed on several accounts. He did not share with his wife the command- thereby giving her the opportunity to also realize and correct her idolatry of putting Isaac above God in her priorities. (If she had tried to prevent Abraham- he was the husband and male leader of the camp- there really was no real way she could have prevented him anyway.) He did not share with the servants- would they have benefited from his growing theology? He did not share with Isaac until the last moment- a betrayal of trust, could Isaac who showed in the end (EGW) he was fully willing to sacrificed to God- have been the shining Messiah figure by urging his weak, doting parents that God must be supreme in all their hearts- and the journey to Moriah could have been a communal Gethsemane for the whole party- a severe crucible of spiritual purification?

This didn't happen, I know. But was God's purpose in the test- limited to the demonstration of one lonely old man's singleminded devotion to Himself over reason? Or with the preceding spiritual ethical preparation given to Abraham- was it meant to be much deeper, communally shining example of the ultimate test met by an ultimate ethical answer?

To me, Abraham's response was a human and understandable setback. Stil, totally accepted by God and praised by NT writers. Yet, logically, there were other superior options that Abraham could have taken drawn from his own experience. Abraham gets an A-. And A+ was attainable.

I agree with Dave on the distinctiveness of Christian ethics. Nancey Murphy says that "we have to use the language and warrants specific to our own tradition in order to understand our own moral calling. But this does not mean that those outside the Christian tradition cannot understand what we say and see in our ideals a better way of life." I agree twice!

Arlyn,

Excellent analysis of Abraham/Isaac episode. I am sure that Isaac was brought up by Abraham with an experiential faith in God and his response to being offered as a sacrifice is not as traumatic is some earlier posts make it out to be. And, maybe not all information is provided to us (as we so presumptuously make it out to be).

Everybody

Wow! This is a very rich discussion and it is helping me to see things that are new and helpful. Thank you!

I'm hesitant to say either that Christian ethics = secular [or Buddhist, Jewish, etc.] ethics or that they are utterly different. I'm inclined to think that they are similar at some points and different at others, and that this would be true when we compare any great ethical orientations.

With Tom I find the greatest difference to be in the area of motivation, broadly understood to include one's whole philosphy of life.

Tom served wounded people in the South Pacific during World War II primarily out of gratitude to God as portrayed in the life and teachings of Jesus. Although I don't know this to be true, it is possible that there were atheists at that time and place who did what Tom did for very different reasons.

Someone watching Tom and the atheist working together on behalf of a wounded soldier might have been unable to tell any difference in what they were doing even though there might have been much difference in why they were doing it. The same might be the case if we added a third medic, this one being Buddhist or a fourth and Hindu one!

Zane's referene to the Buddhist nuns is an interesting case. At some points Buddhist and Christian ethical expectations strike me as similar even though their world-views are different. But over time the ways they are different at the more theoretical levels become increasingly evident, it seems.

In general I think it evident that through the centuries Buddhism has had a tendency to be more contemplative and withdrawn and Christianity to be more activistic and engaged with the world. I agree that some Buddhists need more engagement and some Christians more contemplation. It's hard to strike a good balance!

Sticking with this just a bit longer. The Christian idea of "Savior" and the Buddhist one of Boddhivasta (spelling?) are so similar in some ways and yet so different in others!

Arlyn's reading of the story deserves much attention, I believe. The possibility of an "Ishmael-like" solution had not come to my mind. Also, the recital of all those with whom Abraham failed to consult is so right.

At the very least, when we think we have heard the voice of God telling us to do something that to us is ethically abhorent, we should consult with others.

This is why participating in and being accountable to a community of faith is so important. Heading off entirely on our own can be dangerous!

Reading Arlyn's interpretation of the story brings to mind the teaching of some today that we progress from one level of stage of moral maturity to a better one primarily when a crisis of some sort tests us and we realize that our customary ways of thinking and acting no longer "work." The crisis does not produce or guarantee moral growth, but without it moral growth cannot or usually does not take place.

Very intersting. Thanks!

Dave

Johnny

Great citatation from Nancey Murphy. With you, I agree twice.

Does an anology to ethnicity work? People who are very different might in their own ways come to very similar conclusions at some points. Do any thoughtful persons think it OK for men sexually to force young girls in their own tribes, for example?

Consider Shakespeare's Shylock on the issue of "Christian ethics":

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." -- Shylock, "The Merchant of Venice", Act III Scene I

Zane, I think a difference between how Buddhism and Christianity approach "good deeds" is a difference between an individual and communal approach. Buddhism is a more individual approach while Christianity is more corporate. We do good as an institution (and as individuals) while they do good as individuals. I think one could easily argue that the corporate approach allows for much more to be done.

My main point though, was not how we do good to those who need help but how we treat our enemies. I still think Buddhists practice a much more consistently compassionate approach to their enemies even if it is more individual. Ghandi drew every bit as much from Buddha as from Jesus in forming his non-violent resistance and Buddhists continue to practice that much more than do Christians. Christians seem to have embraced the notion of fighting evil doers with violence and unfortunately, evil doers seem more and more to be defined as those who threaten our standard of living/way of life. Our very Christian nation, led by our very Christian president, and cheered on by many Christians, has not done a whole lot to embrace the concept of loving your enemies lately.

David, you said:

"That we find the Golden Rule in one shape or another in many cultures, happily suggests to me that it has an "inner logic" is the point I was intending: Religion really has little to do with it. It is the desire of most peoples to live in harmony if they are side-by-side. This excludes the very war-like nations who seem to have been driven for the need to conquer (excess testosterone?).

Christians have been just as eager to go to war as others, except they have "blessed" their reasons and given reasons of making other Christians or forcing their beliefs on others.

No, the Golden Rule is not practiced; which in no way makes it less worthy. Nor, do Christians limit their good works to people of their own group even from the earliest centuries--which is one of the reasons the Roman rulers praised them.

As for Abraham, the reluctance to label it a myth, is usually from those who have an incorrect connotation of that word. Many of the older biblical stories are myths, and a student of archaeology or biblical imagery and its uses by the Hebrews will conclude that these were told to inspire and give meaning for them, particularly when things looked bleak. When in exile or captivitity they could tell and retell of their former days of glory.

When we read pagan myths and stories of gods and their infanticide and murders, we instantly cringe at such dastardly deeds. Yet the same stories, because they in the Bible, draw praise and adulation for these wonderful characters--men who would readily offer their sons as sacrifices, would chop up and kill their enemies, even babies, with no hesitation. Cognitive dissonance?

We have entirely different rules for judging the Bible than we do all other early contemporary literature. We put on our rose-colored glasses and suddenly, everything seems entirely praise-worthy and appropriate. Do we realize what we're doing when that is exactly what is happening? It's the same as judging the wonderful "Christian ethics" of someone who has done worthy and noble acts; but the same behavior of a (fill in the blank) is judged differently.

Our motives may speak only to God, not our fellowman. Jesus rightly spoke to pure motive of aiding the helpless in the last story of Matt. 25.

Dave

I agree no one but God Himself could tell the difference in motive in any ethical act.

I can tell you that ethical behavior is not always fun and games. A story out of WWII.

Victims

The campaign for Luzon was almost over. One of our regiments was pulled out of the line after receiving very heavy casualties in the Hills of Bam Bam during the battle for Clark Field. We were exhausted from days of patching up the victims of hate and fear from both sides.

Besides our own wounded, we received Filipino guerrilla fighters who had been strung up by their thumbs and used for bayonet practice. I watched them die as their lungs slowly filled with blood. We received Japanese soldiers captured by the guerrillas who had methodically cut across all major tendons of the hands, wrist, elbows, knees, and ankles.

This quiet afternoon, the ambulance delivered two Japanese soldiers beaten from one end to the other with heavy clubs. They were covered with bruises, abrasion, their eyes and mouths were swollen almost shut, but they were still conscious.

I was the medic assigned to care for the wounded and injured before surgery. The triage officer knelt beside the litter and started to examine the prisoners. As he got to the legs, he grabbed them roughly and began to twist and pull and then tried to make a sawing motion. I said, “Sir, why are you doing that? Look how much it is hurting.” He said, “I’m checking for fractures.” I said, “We don’t check our men that way.” He said, “If it weren’t for these bastards, I’d be back in the Bronx making a damn good living.” I said, “They are just as much victims as we are.” He said, “Soldier, you are out of order. I’m in charge here. That will be all.” He did stop his examination. Tom

I've just read through all the comments. I am yet in bed and my medicinally-induced brain haze has limited what I've been able to absorb today, but nothing above hit me like Tom's last posting.

Maybe it is under incredible stress that the "why" of Christian ethics produces the noticeable difference. Maybe there’s not too many of us, at least in my country, that are going through situations stressful enough to show the difference. YET!

Tom
You have my respect and gratitude. Would that every soldier were like you. Thank you!
Dave

These are some of the thoughts/questions that have hung in my mind this afternoon while contemplating this column on Christian ethics:

1. If I believe that each of us is formed by the God of Heaven and if I believe that each of us is born with a propensity to sin, and yet an inborn desire to be good, could not God actually be the ultimate author of the good produced in the life of both the Christian and Non-Christian who responds to this inner urge and tries to ultimately live the best life possible, whether they are aware of its origin or not? And, yet, wouldn’t people watching the Non-Christian end up believing that the Non-Christian’s behavior was a product of that person’s belief system when, in reality, it was generated by their Creator God? Could this not look very similar to the actions of the others in the Non-Christian’s own belief system? What, if any, differences would be noticed between the two groups within that belief system? Would the differences be manifested only in the lack of loving your enemies, i.e. terrorists out of Islam and wars fought in the name of Christianity, in highly emotionally stressful and abusive situations, as in Tom’s story? Or would there be more subtle, yet recognizable, differences?
2. We’ve all seen the difference in the spirit of the ethics of the works-oriented and the relationally-directed Christian, but I believe there’s another level above those two. There’s a plane that I’ve only in more recent years even knew existed. (For all I know, there are many other planes. This just happens to be as far as I’ve personally reached and even at that they were short, few, far between experiences that have occurred only during the latter part of my life.) I don’t know how else to explain it except to say that the Christian’s experience goes from God helping them to do the right thing to a state of being a vessel for God to directly do His work through. It’s a state of just being in God. It’s no longer you doing the right thing with God’s help; it is you just “being” as God works through you. The book “My Utmost for His Highest” (Oswald Chambers, Revised Ed.) seems to explain it better than any other I’ve read so far. As I’ve said before my own experiences with this have been so limited it’s still hard for me to even comprehend, especially when I’m not there which has been most of my life. What is the difference in the observable moral and ethical behavior of the last two states mentioned? Does anyone know what it looks like?
3. As long as we are talking about Abraham and Isaac, a story that I’ve always understood to be true and representative of God and Christ’s plan to save this world, why Abraham? Why then? Jesus didn’t hit the scene until many years later.

4. David you said, “The form of what we take to be the voice of God--dream, vision, impression, ecstatic experience--is never a sufficient basis for believing it is authentic.” If you cannot go by this and you should not do that which is specifically against God’s basic laws, then what DO you go by? What should Abraham have done to determine if this was the right thing to do? And, is there possibly some merit in looking at this story with a realization that God never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac? (Are there any other stories in the bible where God actually asked and expected a human sacrifice? I don’t know, but I can’t think of one off hand.) I think Abraham absolutely should have been appalled, but what should have guided his response? After all, it was a God with whom he’d already walked and talked who was asking this of him.

5. David you also said, “At the very least, when we think we have heard the voice of God telling us to do something that to us is ethically abhorent, we should consult with others.” Are we sure God didn’t tell Moses NOT to tell anyone? Can you imagine what could have happened if he were to have consulted or even just told everyone in his household before he set out with Isaac? Do you really think there wouldn’t have ended up being a “binding” of Abraham until they could get him to the nearest Psychiatrist? This really presents a dilemma as to how we decide what God wants us to do? How does one interpret Christian Ethics in this situation? Pretty confusing it seems to me anyway!!

I’ve most likely asked questions that were answered above. I have to really concentrate hard to get through deeper reading materials right now, sometimes re-reading and re-re-reading. Please forgive me if I’ve asked about something that has already been discussed and settled above.

And, Aage, I got a kick out of the last part of your statement:

“The quality of a society…is to be measured by how it…deals with prisoners at Guantanomo and Abu Graib. At least, that is how I read the Sermon on the Mount. Obviously, this is not a popular viewpoint today--just ask the people at Dunkin Donuts.” (29 May 2008 at 9:16)

I have to know, did you poll the Dunkin Donut patrons? If so, I’d love to hear about it. Love your humor.

Sorry about no paragraph breaks between my numbers 1,2 and 3 in my second to last posting. I didn't realize I'd lose the breaks when I copied and pasted. That really makes for hard reading.

Gaylene, I wanted to answer a big yes to your first point. In my opinion, God is working through anyone and everyone who is open to good whether Christian or atheist.

I have a friend who happens to be an agnostic Buddhist. She practices Buddhism but has no belief in a god. After having a biological child, she and her husband adopted a little boy from Ethiopia and then adopted an HIV positive teenager also from Ethiopia. Was she God's hands? I have no doubt.

We often think the Bible is the only record of God's handiwork but what if God was actually working in the lives of people besides the Jews? Was God ignoring all the attempts by humans to reach Him for thousands of years until Judaism and then Christianity came along? And then only dealt with them? I can't imagine. If we are willing to look, isn't it possible to see God's work in any culture and belief system? That's not to say that all belief systems are equal, but that God can work with us no matter where we are - and has. God heard the prayers and longings of the Native Americans and the Aborigines and everyone else and I believe he responded. They were/are his children too.

Daniel Golman in his new book, Social Intelligence, cites research that seems to prove that emphathy not only is inbred but that it is not limited to humans. He describes an experiment in which a group of monkeys who became so agitated that they hardly ate for a period of several days after one of them repeatedly was shocked when he approached the feeding station that was the most generous with the food.

I find it hard to believe that we humans are all that different face to face with human suffering and need. What ideology or religion will do is to try to appropriate control of human altruism by specifying what action is appropriate and who is worthy of being helped.

Social Darwinists, for instance, argue that the most successful should be the beneficiaries of altruistic impulses (for instance, by asking the working class to bear the economic burdons of tax relief for the rich) while Christian churches, at least those who identify with Jesus, declares all people worthy of help, and especially the poor.

Langdon Gilkie, in his book Shantung Compound (a book you owe it to yourself to read), writes about his life in a Japanese internment camp in China during WWII. A lot of the prisoners were missionaries, and these were the most difficult people the camp managers (the camp was self-administered, under Japanese control) had to deal with. The secular people were far more willing to give up their extra rooms, once the camp population began to expand, and to help out with kitchen duty and whatever else was required. These people's altruism had not been hijacked by ideology and therefore they lacked the wherewithal to rationalize selfish behavior whereas the missionaries "had to" hang on to extra rooms, because they needed space to study and worship. (As an aside, this was the camp in which Eric Lidell, the Christian hero of "Chariots of Fire" ended his life.)

I lived for ten years among Seventh-day Adventists as a Christian, followed by nearly thirty years as a person of no faith (still the case). I'm still the same, only older and hopefully wiser. Certainly more tolerant and mellow. And I can't say I've noticed any difference as far as ethics is concerned, whether the people I've associated with have been Christians or not. Some people give more of themselves than others, but ideology seems to have very little to do with it.

PS Gaylene, the Dunkin Donuts reference was about the Rachel Ray (I believe) commercial for Dunkin Donuts, which was forced off the air by paranoid right wingers who thought that her scarfed looked too much like Yassir Arafat's (and Dunkin Donuts do serve coffee that contains ARABICA beans, don't they? I wouldn't go there, if I were you.)

Interesting discussion!

Beth,

I agree that God's work can be seen in any culture and belief system. I think Romans 2 lends support to this view. As you said, "God can work with us where we are, and has."

Gaylene,

I think that Beth's statement above gives some sense to the Abraham/Issac narrative. Abraham grew up in a culture in which the sacrifice of one's child to the gods was considered to be the highest privelege. Morally abhorrent to us, but in light of his conditioning, maybe not to Abraham.

It's interesting that nowhere in the story do we see him struggling with the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the act itself. He simply hears the command, sets out to do it, is then stopped, and is commended for his faith. In NT retrospect, he seems to be more concerned with how God will keep his promised blessing if Issac should be sacrificed, then the morality of child sacrifice itself. Could it be that Abraham just did not go through the same cognitive dissonance between the divine command as he understood it, and his own internal moral compass as we would? Could it be that God was truly meeting him at the point of his understanding, as incomprehensible as that may be to us? Could it be that Issac didn't put up a fight, because he held the same belief as his father?

Also, if Abraham did view this through the same set of ethical lenses that we do, then this story leaves us with tremendous problems here and now. For instance, if God would give Abraham a command to violate his own consciense, and God's revealed will to him then, then what is to stop God from doing the same with us today? Would this not leave open the possibility that someone deranged enough to attempt this today, was actually hearing God's voice? Or was Abraham simply a demented, old fool who had to be rescued from his own dangerous religious superstitions at the last moment, just as we would institutionalize someone acting in this fashion now?

All these possibilities seem to me like problematic interpretations and applications of this narrative, if we insist on seeing Abraham through our own cultural lenses. More specifically, I feel that difficulties arise when we try to make a one to one correlation between his sense of ethical consciense, and our consciences that have been conditioned not just by our own societal norms, but also by the entire biblical revelation we have before us...a revelation that culminates in Jesus Christ.

Just some more thoughts. Thanks...

Frank

Here is a provocative statement by someone named Roy Clouser that Gary Chartier of La Sierra University quotes on page 40 in his splendind new book "The Analogy of Love: Divine and Human Love at the Center of Christian Theology."

Gary doesn't agree with these lines and neither do I.

"God is not bound by the laws of morality in the ways that bind us, and God's goodness does not consist in doing what we would have to do to be good. Since God is the Creator of the norms of ethics and justice, they do not apply to him except insofar as he has freely bound himself to them by making covenant promises."

Do many people REALLY believe such things? I know some men and women--perhaps many--say they do. But do they really?

Thank you!

Dave

Thanks to all of you who wrote responses to my postings above. There are some really interesting thoughts that I'm going to go through again in the morning, some angles I've not contemplated before. To all of you, thanks for taking the time to write!! I would welcome any other thoughts on these 5 ideas/questions. Sincerely, Gaylene

Dave
Isn't that the current White House's position on executive power? That if the President does it, it's legal since he is the incarnation of the Nation--even if what he does deviates from its constitutionally described values?

My problem when I read the Old Testament, in particular, is the impression that I'm dealing with a deity whose values in many areas are far from my own (and his own?). I can't accept the idea of God as a celestial version of Ashurbanipal or Stalin.

But this is what happens when people create God in their own image.

Everyone,

Wow..Quite the discussion this has turned into! Thanks everyone, for the questions and enlightenment.

Beth and Elaine,

I agree with you that Christians historically and presently have failed to live up to the ideals they profess! =)The issue, at this point, that I'm interested in exploring is the specific content of that ideal. Is it something that can be found in in other systems of belief as well.

I am not familiar enough with Buddhism (or other religions) to comment on this, but would be very interested in an explanation of the similarities/differences between Christian love and Buddhist compassion. The later, and this may be gross oversimplification, is based on disinterest, no?

On the secular side, in some competing schools of thought, there is the utilitarian acting "for the greater good" which in the end is a form of egoism/self-love, Kantian maxims, which does seem to yield acts of charity, but deeds done out of a sense of duty.

Dave,

Thanks for the lead on the book by Chartier. I've added it to my wishlist. =) Another book I have not had the chance to read yet, but have heard very good things about is "Kierkegaard's Ethic of Love" by C. Stephen Evans (I don't know how to add the link!)which presents a sophisticated version of Divine Command Theory.

The quote you cite above, I think is a very bad articulation of DCT. A good version, qualifies that God is love, or posits a unity between the attributes of God's "rationality, being, and will."

Combine this with the view that "reasoning" is not univocal or identical to ours, (but perhaps analogous), there will be intelligibility, but seeming "irrationality" (from our perspective) of some commands.

Oh, and Johnny, on Murphey's position on ethics. She's an open admirer of MacIntyre, Wittgenstein, and Hauerwas. Christian ethics, for her, is a discourse/tradition that has developed around a specific sacred text, i.e. the Bible. (She also seems to have a pretty pessimistic view of the prospects and possibilities of a purely secular ethic.)

Gaylene, I strongly agree with the notion of God's being creator as being the source of all goodness in the world, Christian or non. In addition to this, add the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is at work everywhere in the world, and you have a strong theological case (from the Christian perspective) that ethical truths can be found everywhere.

Okay, this is getting way to long. For those of you who are still reading, thank you for indulging me! =)

Oops...A typo:

"...Kantian maxims, which does NOT yield acts of charity, but deeds done out of a sense of duty."

At the time of my story on WWII, I was a nineteen year old buck private--with the background of an very sensistive ethical home life and two years of college at old E.M.C. (There were really heroes on the campus in those days.)

I took the same stance at Glacier View and at the pogrom at Southern Missionary College. Unfortunately, when I was moved from Associate Dean of the School of Dentistry to Vice President of the Medical College of Georgia a large number of my files were lost. So I can no longer share the hate mail I received against the victims at SMC. There was no torn flesh but many hearts were needlessly broken. I had to take a visable stand against such unchristian ethics. The mantra of the day was right out of the trial of Jesus: "It is better than one man die than a whole Church perish!" I have found no apologies for those actions although long overdue.

How can one "come to judgement" with those actions unacknowledged and reputiated? Claiming, "I kept the Church pure by character assassination" is a very weak argument. Tom

Christians seem unjustly proud of bearing that name and seek to justify their actions by simply calling them "Christian Ethics" as if there were really were different sets of ethics for religious beliefs.

Good ethics knows no religious boundaries; which is why secular humanists claim that valuing each human as worthy makes more sense, IMO. We should treat each person as worthy, and just as we wish to be treated as worthy.

Tom, you made a beautiful comparison of the ideal that all medical professionals and those caring for the wounded should have: EVERYONE is treated with the same care and respect, their "side" they are fighting on makes not one whit of difference. By separating people into groups, we do then have Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and the renditions this nations has supported.

To continue to be redundant: there is no better ethical standard than the Golden Rule; all others are simply amplifications of that one.

To obey a god who gives orders that contradict one's conscience should always be ignored. Because the mythical tale of Abraham was lauded by the Jews for his faith, simply continues the many similar commands they attributed to God to justify their own moral depravity. I am totally unable to worship a god who would so capriciously order the killing of one or a thousand of his own children. Through the years there have been many who have tried to rationalize and justify these actions and frankly, they have been gibberish, as though the individual was trying to convince himself. We cannot continue to ignore the truth of these biblical stories and claim to be Christian and have no rational explanation for them. Agnosticism is founded on such irrational explanations.