The basic premise of a course I took on Christian ethics in divinity school was “Ethics is the Essence of Christianity.” Without giving you even the slightest glimpse of the nature and direction of this class, I must say that this statement is a radical one. On the most basic and foundational level, Christianity is about what we do, our ethics.** This stands in contrast to the position that espouses Christianity is (only?) about one’s system of beliefs. What we as Christians believe is vitally important to how we describe ourselves or how we invite others to be a part of our faith communities. Furthermore, it might determine what is unique about us. However, what often happens concerning our beliefs is that they are used to divide us from others. This is neither a good description of who we are, nor is it inviting to others who may be seeking some kind of faith community. The question, then, becomes: “What is unique about Christianity?” A wide range of responses are the result.
What if it were easy to complete this sentence: “All Christians…”?
I do not suppose finishing this sentence is an easy task. But, I do suggest that a good place to look would be Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:34-36. Maybe then we could finish the sentence.
All Christians…feed people who are hungry.
All Christians…give a drink to the thirsty.
All Christians…welcome strangers.
All Christians…clothe the naked, take care of the sick, and visit those in prison.
This describes Christianity as driven more by ethics than beliefs.
It strikes me as ironic that even as Christians are dividing themselves based on beliefs, Jesus divides based on ethics.
Just what did those sheep believe that made them different from the goats?
------
**I prefer a simple definition of “ethics” to mean one’s actions, values, morals, politics, etc., rather than another term for what one believes or what doctrines are held.
i"m reading...
i"ve read and recommend...
i"m listening to...
i"m linking to...
3 comments:
I see your point, but we must be careful in this statement. The essence of Christianity is belief. Jesus aslo said that we must believe in Him, to be Christian. The world is and always have been full of good people who do the right things, but they did not believe in Jesus and therefore were not Christians.
The biggest problem with beliefs is that everyone has his own. I often say when discussing things of a political or religious nature with people, "we'll just have to agree to disagree."
There is no way to have any belief system whether political or religious and not have disagreement. Ever since the beginning of the Church in the years immediately following the death of Christ, there were splits and factions. Even within different denominations of Christianity that have already split from one another from the inital Protestant Reformation to the many splits that are happening even to this day. I doubt any protestant would say that Martin Luther should not have contradicted the Catholic Church for the sake of unity. On that same line of thought, people who contradict the established authorities of today have every right.
The real source of division comes from our definition of what is fundamental to Christianity. Is mere belief enough, or do we have to live our lives to a higher standard; and if we must live our lives to a higher standard, what does that mean. Does it mean doing good, as in the verses you quoted, or does it mean setting higher moral standards and adhering strictly to the guidelines set forth in the Bible.
The proof of a Christian is not what they do, but why they do it. Do we feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, and visit those in prison because we want to, because we have to, to show how good we are, or to show the love of Christ? Also can we stand together as Christians who love the Lord to do good things in his name or do we let our infighting get in the way of our Great (co)Mission to GO and TEACH. which yet again brings us back to the beginning of this argument. What to teach... but that's for another day.
We must learn to seperate the politics from the mission. Regardless of the politics and nit-pickiness of our doctrines and creeds and beliefs, we are on the same mission from the same God through the same Christ.
Our churches are for the edification of believers, and I believe that if churches didn't split there would be so much infighting nothing would get done. We should attend a church which teaches the same beliefs we hold, but we should be able to reach accross denominational lines to GO and TEACH and reach the world for Christ not in spite of, but because of our beliefs.
I think you make an outstanding point, TM.
A pastor I heard one time (for some reason, I'm not sure if it wasn't you) said that most Christians had a very good vertical relationship, that is a good relationship with God, but failed deeply at their relationships with others.
The book of James alludes to this in saying that faith without works is dead. As you have referenced in Matthew, Jesus basically says the same thing.
If you as a Christian or you as a church body are focused outside, and are practicing good works and loving others, the rest will take care of itself. The simple act of loving another person, that is putting their interests and needs first, takes the focus off of what you need. And that is the problem in most church splits...too many people looking out for their own need or ideology rather than trying to love God and love people.
I know this jumps all over the place, but I had a few things in each of your comments that I wanted to speak on. I will leave you with one last quote from Paul...
"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."
Abduction as the Synthesis of Belief and Ethics
When Christians try to describe what the essence of Christianity is, it usually ends with a mixture of ethics and beliefs. Father Newell pointed out Jesus dividing by ethics in Matt. 25 and the anonymous contributor notes that the epistle of James draws similar conclusions by describing ethical living as the lifeblood of faith. Josh was also quick to point out that mere ethics without belief amounts to less than Christianity, perhaps Jesus-influenced humanism, but beliefs are what gives the Christian the distinct motivation, heart of compassion, and love for others that compel the ethical living. The underlining assumption of this debate is that one can have correct belief without ethics or correct ethics without belief. It is my attempt here to synthesize beliefs and ethics through abduction, as developed by Charles Peirce, and by doing so one can hopefully complete the sentence: ‘Christianity is….’
Before describing abduction I think it is important to understand what the word ‘believe’ has meant and now means. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, in his work Faith and Belief examines how the words came to have distinct meanings over time. For our discussion it will suffice to note that faith and belief were formerly synonymous, meaning “loyalty to a person to whom one is bound by promise or duty, or to one’s promise or duty itself.” The point being, both faith and belief originally described an act of the heart and not the head. It is true that throughout the Church’s history her theologians have discussed Christianity’s essential beliefs, but prior to its modern morphing these beliefs were not correct answers on True\False questions. What has and still is important are our beliefs in the word’s original flavor, our active loyalty to…., this belief is an action of the heart and not intellectual assent. Belief is the giving of our heart.
After saying that, do not think that I am insisting that ethics are all that matters and that belief has somehow been downgraded to the mere giving of our heart. It is the enlightenment that tells us that literal and historically proven events are the only ones worth believing in. Instead, in the giving of the heart (belief) to the God revealed in Christ our beliefs are determined by our ethics. It maybe more appropriate to say that our ethics reveal our beliefs, but Peirce will clarify the proposed synthesis.
Abduction, as Peirce developed it, is a means for evaluating the truth in a given proposition by examining the effects of a given proposition. As he stated in his rule for attaining truth, “consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” In its essence, abduction holds a belief to be a rule for action and the fortitude of a belief is determined by the belief becoming habit. It then follows that “different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise.” In commenting on Peirce, John Macquarrie points out that “if we find two persons arguing about beliefs between which there is no difference that can be practically determined, we must conclude that such persons, although they do not recognize it, are really in agreement about their beliefs, and differ only in the manner in which they express the same belief, or in their emotional relation to a particular expression.” Peirce used arguments over transubstantiation as an example and said, “It is foolish for Catholics and Protestants to fancy themselves in disagreement about the elements of the sacrament, if they agree in regard to all their sensible effects.”
What then does abduction have to say about the relationship of ethics and beliefs for Christians? If our beliefs are the what, how, and who of our living then a synthesis of ethics and belief has occurred and it is only in ethical living that one can confess their beliefs. I believe this to be an appropriate synthesis because the call Jesus gives to a disciple is still, “come and follow me.” Bonhoeffer notes that “the response of the disciples is an act of obedience, not a confession of faith in Jesus…for faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and only becomes faith in the act of obedience.” Bonhoeffer develops a similar abductive synthesis when he states, “you can only know and think about it by actually doing it...for it is only through obedience that you come to learn the truth.” The truth, of which we seek in belief and ethic, cannot be separate from the giving of our heart, loyalty, and obedience to Christ.
The answer developed here is: “Christianity is obedience, loyalty, and the giving of our heart to Christ.” This answer is the synthesis of both belief and ethics. It seems to match the ministry of Jesus, because the disciples followed and were sent alone on mission prior to any (Peter’s) confession that Jesus was the Christ. This abductive synthesis does bring us to new questions like, “what does belief in the resurrection live like?” or “what does belief in the incarnation live like?” These questions affirm the truth of both the resurrection and the incarnation, but they do not sit in the arguments of our head endlessly burdened and divided on how they work out or what happened historically. Instead the church is called to seek the truth in living obedience. Would it not be odd if God really wanted the church to pass the eternal True\False quiz in our head and miss the heart? Instead of looking at Matt. 25 (ex. or the Sermon on the Mount) as ethical demands for being Christians, should we not see them as guidance of correct belief? Is not Jesus describing what obedience, faith, belief look like in the flesh? Much of Jesus’ ethical teachings make sense for decent living in general, but others seem absurd (ex. Sell all you have…turn the other cheek…give without return). Maybe before claiming to believe in Easter we should see if we have lessened our own comfort and security to obey Jesus. The death of Jesus on the cross leaves us questioning Jesus, his Father, and his radical ethics. Easter is God’s triumph of the cross’ tragedy, God’s vindication of the life and Way of Jesus, and if we believe in Easter should we not live a life of obedience to Christ, knowing that even when common sense tells us likewise the God of Easter will triumph though we may suffer (or eat out less, get fewer CDs, or be kind to the bigoted homophobe calling on the talk-radio show). Christianity is living the Way of Jesus and making a habit of it.
Post a Comment