O'Donovan speaks mucho truth:
The foundations of Christian ethics must be evangelical foundations; or, to put it more simply, Christian ethics must arise from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise it could not be Christian ethics. Resurrection and Moral Order, p. 11
A belief in Christian ethics is a belif that certain ethical and moral judgements belong to the gospel itself; a belief, in other words, that the church can be commited to ethics without moderating the tone of its voice as a bearer of glad tidings. RMO p. 12
That is, the question has to be, how can we preach/do ethics, and at the same time preach the good news?
12 comments:
By preaching ethics as good news. God gives us the gift of good works in which to walk (Eph 2.10).
Still bugged by Milbank?
ethics as good news...
O'Donovan implies that 'ethics' and 'Christian' sit nicely together. Or rather, rereading the first quote, that the 'Christian' bit modifies, transforms, (redeems?) ethics.
At this point, are Christian ethics something that someone - outside of Christian faith - will recognise as an ethics?
O'Donovan expands on this stuff at the end of RMO, especially in a passage on p.246, which I've posted here.
Hi all,
It seems to me that in preaching Gods ethics - before 'conversion', and 'after conversion' are entirely different beasts - prior to conversion the defence and explanation of Christian ethic (with respect for the other) has a place in demolishing intellectual strongholds aginst the throne of God - allowing God's law or ethics to wrought conviction of the guilty 'nature' which the law is set up to do.
After conversion, we walk in the light of his redemptive truth - not only of our soul but of our lifestyle as it is transformed through acts of daily repentance - and preaching ethics supports that.
There is of course a distinction between Gods perfect law and our applied version of this within our own time-space (which I undestand to be xn ethics), and this requires a humility in our conversations as we in our human frailty and falleness can get it wrong.
Cath, I think part of O'Donovan's point is that we can preach the Christian life of obedience as good news, even to those who haven't yet accepted Christ.
Drew: what makes you suspect that they mightn't? What is it about Christian ethics that will make the discourse/practice unintelligible as ethics?
Byron,
Well if that is O'Donovan's point, yes I agree that the Christain life of obedience can be seen as 'good news' in the sense that the 'goodness of goodness' offers us wholesomeness and peace, for indeed morality is good in itself when we live it out. I have observed that many good secular people have worked out that moral lives 'work' - in many instances morality brings happiness.
But does preaching the Christain life of obedience as 'good news' (or at least wording it this way) overlook the sting in the tail of morality ?? ie that we cannot live up to Gods perfect standards - whilst an albeit imperfect 'good' life by the world's standards can bring wholesome consequences in this life (allowing for a few other variables) - there is still condemnation for those who do not live up to Gods standards.
Thus, we Xns preach the Good news of salvation and peace with God as relief from the experience of condemnation as THE good news.
I think Christain ethics is apologetics and not preaching! - Its probably more of a matter of emphasis, but engaging with Xn ethics prepares the way for conviction of sin in response to hearing about Gods law and justice, and for responding to the good news of mercy in the face of judgement. And Christian obedience is one of the abundant blessings that God then pours into our (Xn) lives in addition to His mercy.
I think I would deny that (ultimately) there is a moral life without it being a Christian life (though those who reject or ignore Christ can still through common grace partially enjoy much that is good). Thus, the invitation - indeed, the summon - to live a truly good life is good news. This is not simply any old good life, but the specifically Christian good life: a life in which we admit our failings and limitations, our needs and dependency, in which we grasp how deeply we are loved and start the slow walk into a life and community of love, in which grace is the basis and mode of relationships, in which Christ is the model, the mediator and the messiah. So rather than opposing ethics to evangelism, or making ethics preliminary to evangelism, true ethics is evangelism. This ought to change not only how we something think about ethics, but also how we think about evangelism! The only good life worth living is the life of repentance and faith, which is also the life of love and hope.
I think I was commenting based on an assumption that the greek roots of ethics and Christian moral thought were not capable of communicating clearly with each other.
Having gone off and read the first bit of RMO I've got a better idea of what O'Donovan's doing, and he tackles that very issue. His clarification of the ontological and epistemological aspects of created order and redemption helps clear the air... at least for me, and for the moment!
Byron,
I am wondering whether we are commenting on two differnet concepts of goodness - goodness in terms of wholesomeness and goodness in terms of the pure moral life, 'being good'? Thus my original comment - the 'goodness of goodness' - ie the 'wholesomeness of living a pure life' that seeks to meet Gods standards. However, I liked your observation that the xn 'moral life', must look different from the perfect life that Jesus walked - due to xn sinfulness. That the xn moral life must now include a truthful response to our failings, by walking in 'grace' (not that I have read the books that comment on this).
I think that the point that I was trying to make about xn ethics is that whilst this may be more illuminated by the light of Gods truth than greek ethics, the application of Gods principles that have been enshrined in the scripture to a messy imperfect world (our time-space), has still the potential to be contaminated by our fallen natures as Xns. It is also more likely to be seen as 'contestable' by the world, rather than God's word speaking directly into their lives.
At a practical level in
speaking about our faith to others, I am wondering whether using the language of goodness would be confusing - calling people into the 'good' Christian life may be misinterpreted as calling people into the goodness of 'Christain life' in the second sense of the word - ie that we xns are 'good' and that non-Christains are 'evil'. Many of my friends who are not xn have picked up this message and regard us as highly hypocritical as a result (they just have to look at me and my need to depend on their grace to me as a colleague and friend to see this untruth!). I have come to the point in my life where I regard the 'relative goodness' between the xn and non-xn is meaningless, when compared to the perfect goodness of God. From Gods perspective, looking down on us from on high, it is the equivalent to a man at the top of centrepoint tower distingishing the moral heights of a 6 ft and and 5 ft man. (The only difference between xns and non-xns is that we have access to the spirit who enables us to live ethically through a different energy - by confessing and putting to death our individual sins, rather than than acknowledging a failing, perhaps partly justifying,excusing or denying it, or attempting to make up for the blemish by trying harder). As we all know, our rightouseousness is found only in Christ, His robes of righteousenss cover us, we are hid in Him.
And the instances where my friends have tried to insist that I am 'Good' or 'perfect' (as someone dared to call me) are really an obstacle to them hearing the gospel. It appears that this is their attempt to it pretend that perfection is possible in this world, or that human standards as opposed to God's standards are good enough. God does call us to live good lives on this earth, as a part of our witness, I think that the way this operates at a daily level is that if someone sees me (in my imperfect walk) 'be good' in an area of their own life that they have hardened their consceience in, they are convicted of their own sin. (for eg, refusing to lie at work).
I have found that living out the xn moral life of grace (which you were talking about), where I confess my own sin when telling my story, and have integrity in acknowledging and responding to my own failings in relationship, seeking their forgiveness and making restitution where necessary is the most powerful way of helping people comprehend this gospel of grace.
I fear that if we do not emphasise in evangelism a call to repentance in the face of failure to meet Gods good standards, we make the mistake of calling people to acknowledgement of truth, rather than repentance of sin. Of course, we cannot have one without the other, but sometimes I fear in our evangelistic methods, in a fear of seeming judgemental, we bypass the judgement of Gods and summon people to simply acknowledge the truth. Evangelism will lose its power if we do not also summon people to also bow the knee - by asking people to 'say sorry'.
I do acknowledge though, that for a particular individual who is struggling with the lie that goodness is bad, restricting, damaging.. the summons into a truly good life may be exactly what they need to hear.
I fear that if we do not emphasise in evangelism a call to repentance in the face of failure to meet Gods good standards, we make the mistake of calling people to acknowledgement of truth, rather than repentance of sin.
I agree, though this was why I was suggesting that we need to broaden our understanding of 'ethics' to include living a life of continual repentance.
Nonetheless, I do think that the common life of the Christian community ought to be noticably and attractively different from the surrounding culture. This seems to be the assumption throughout the NT.
Hi Byron, yes I got that! You were broadening my way of thinking about the christian ethics and lifestyle as I was writing! .. sorry if I did not make this clear. It is this state of living in grace and continual repentance that you described that is light to those around. Thanks for your challenging engagement.. Cath
Post a Comment