From Matthew 5, the words of Jesus:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I heard recently a well-known media figure say of these words 'I think they were ill-advised'. It isn't often, even in secular Australia, that you hear the teaching of Jesus challenged as to its wisdom. I was too shocked to respond with quickness of wit I am afraid to say. Not that secular people shouldn't challenge or question Jesus' teaching directly - it is just that they rarely bother to do it...
Not that my conversation partner was without insight here of course. He understood quite well that in this teaching Jesus raises the stakes for moral discouse quite appreciably. For Jesus, it is not only external actions that count - action that can be calculated as to the hurt they cause to others. No: the inner world of thoughts and desires are part of the picture. My disposition and my mindset - my 'heart': these are not out of the game, as far as Jesus is concerned. In this he is reminding Israel of the 10th commandment, against covetousness - a prohibition against ill-directed desire rather than against an evil action.
Was this 'ill-advised'? Did it bequeath to the Christian tradition a tendency to inwardness that leaves a legacy of psychologically harmful guilt? Did it leave us unable to think healthily about desire, unable to seperate the 'harmless' secret contemplations of the 'normal' individual from the pathologically harmful deeds of the criminal or the adulterer? Did it leave us terribly afraid of depictions of nudity in art (for example), depictions that are in fact harmless and even beautiful?
I don't think it was 'ill-advised' (of course). I think there is a terrible naivety - exposed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount - in imagining that we are capable of such self-mastery that we can nurture ill-directed desire without it affecting our outer world of relationships. Can a wife fantasise about another man while sleeping with her husband and imagine that there be no ill-effects - quite apart from the shattering inauthenticity and hypocrisy of the act, an act which is meant as an expression of desire for a particular other, and turns out not to be? Can we really leave lying around in the supposedly private chambers of our heart the desire that another fail, or be harmed, or even die, without resulting damage in the public world? Can we - ought we - live in such a two-faced way, that our inner and outer worlds are completely different? Is that what makes for whole and healthy, authentic people?
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
With God, nothing is impossible...
This weekend's Sydney Morning Herald magazine included a feature on the minority of people who have chosen not to have sex before (or outside) marriage. (Unfortunately it is not published online, or I would link to it). Though the author, Amanda Hooton, interviews a number of people who are celibate or trying to be (including the admirable Jason Stevens) and does so sympathetically, she throws a great deal of doubt on whether the celibate lifestyle and its promotion is healthy and safe.
She cites statistics which show that celibacy pledges actually achieve nothing by way of stopping pre-marital sexual activity, and actually increase the likelihood of such activity occurring in an unsafe way. Further, by linking sex to guilt and shame, religious groups are making it more difficulty for teenagers to behave in a mature way, not easier (is the claim).
Hooton writes:
It [sex] is...on some basic level, part of what it is to be human; part of life. And chastity, in this context at least, feels like a denial of life. Can it really be a path to happiness and contentment? Perhaps no-one can answer this question for anyone else...but one can't help wonder about the coercive powers of chastity movements en masse, rather than on an individual basis, in which so many people are manoeuvered into decision that are not only evidently wrong for them, but potentially dangerous.
So here we have the usual stuff about personal authenticity and sex as an expression of it. And the importance of the personal in sexual ethics.
All the people interviewed in the article are religious in one way or another, and extremely so -Pentecostal Christians and Mormons, which increases the impression that this is not a 'rational' way to behave. I was disappointed at how unconvincing they were. While some of them give a good account of themselves, the reasoning of some of the people interviewed far too easily falls into a lame consequentialism. That is, they seek to establish that sex before marriage is in some way demonstrably bad for you. 'You'll get pregnant'. 'You'll get disease'. 'You'll be psychologically damaged'. Trouble is, the secular person can respond to all these by saying 'good education prevents these', and 'teens are just as likely to have pre-marital sex with a chastisty pledge as without'.
And this is where I wonder whether Christians have got the reasoning about this all wrong and fallen back into a kind of terrible Pelagianism with regard to sex before marriage. In the first instance, the consequentialist arguments about pre-marital sex are not very convincing - and in fact there has emerged a counter argument (that celibacy is bad for you, or at least, for many). At this point the celibacy movements are looking more than a little shaky. They haven't convinced people that the consequences of sex outside marriage are that devastating. And the heated rhetoric they use seems to belong to a different age.
And times have indeed changed: in a former time, social pressure and shame would have pushed most people in the direction of pre-marital abstinence. People would have lived out a Christianised ethic in their sex lives, but on the basis of conformity to social norms. And the dangers, especially for girls, of misbehaviour were very severe. Without reliable contraception or easy access to abortion, self-control was a necessary weapon against the terrible stigma of teen pregnancy or worse. Religious teaching of course played a part, but in a negative sense: reminding people of the terrible spiritual consequences of misbehaviour rather than the potential for grace and forgiveness.
Now social pressure runs the other way (it is a truism to say!). 75% of people think pre-marital sex is fine. Religious groups are in decline. The public square is saturated with sexual images. It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don't hurt anyone. It is 'part of a life' - felt to be part of really living. Girls and boys are taught that to be a full person you need to express your sexual self, not exercise restraint. And their bodily appetites confirm this.
This is where a theological account of human nature needs to come in. Whereas before, conformity to social norms made celibacy humanly possible, the new context makes it (for many people) humanly impossible. And this is where just telling people to try harder, or getting them to make pledges, or take cold showers, is bound to fail. Or, it gives them false hope in their ability to master themselves. It trusts too much in the flesh over which we have in the end so little power - without the Spirit of God. If you are a youth leader wondering how on earth you can tell your young people to keep their hands off each other, well let us acknowledge the reality of the situation: it is impossible. It is impossible because of social convention, because consequential arguments don't convince, and because human flesh is weak.
But Jesus said:
With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God. This applies to randy teenagers as much as to greedy rich men. With the Spirit of God, it is possible even for young people to remain celibate until they are married. I am convinced that this is the teaching of the Bible, which is good for human beings - even when they can't explain how. If it weren't at least sometimes the case that the Word of God asked of us something that runs counter to what is apparently reasonable and decent in the contemporary world, I would doubt that it was the Word of God!
She cites statistics which show that celibacy pledges actually achieve nothing by way of stopping pre-marital sexual activity, and actually increase the likelihood of such activity occurring in an unsafe way. Further, by linking sex to guilt and shame, religious groups are making it more difficulty for teenagers to behave in a mature way, not easier (is the claim).
Hooton writes:
It [sex] is...on some basic level, part of what it is to be human; part of life. And chastity, in this context at least, feels like a denial of life. Can it really be a path to happiness and contentment? Perhaps no-one can answer this question for anyone else...but one can't help wonder about the coercive powers of chastity movements en masse, rather than on an individual basis, in which so many people are manoeuvered into decision that are not only evidently wrong for them, but potentially dangerous.
So here we have the usual stuff about personal authenticity and sex as an expression of it. And the importance of the personal in sexual ethics.
All the people interviewed in the article are religious in one way or another, and extremely so -Pentecostal Christians and Mormons, which increases the impression that this is not a 'rational' way to behave. I was disappointed at how unconvincing they were. While some of them give a good account of themselves, the reasoning of some of the people interviewed far too easily falls into a lame consequentialism. That is, they seek to establish that sex before marriage is in some way demonstrably bad for you. 'You'll get pregnant'. 'You'll get disease'. 'You'll be psychologically damaged'. Trouble is, the secular person can respond to all these by saying 'good education prevents these', and 'teens are just as likely to have pre-marital sex with a chastisty pledge as without'.
And this is where I wonder whether Christians have got the reasoning about this all wrong and fallen back into a kind of terrible Pelagianism with regard to sex before marriage. In the first instance, the consequentialist arguments about pre-marital sex are not very convincing - and in fact there has emerged a counter argument (that celibacy is bad for you, or at least, for many). At this point the celibacy movements are looking more than a little shaky. They haven't convinced people that the consequences of sex outside marriage are that devastating. And the heated rhetoric they use seems to belong to a different age.
And times have indeed changed: in a former time, social pressure and shame would have pushed most people in the direction of pre-marital abstinence. People would have lived out a Christianised ethic in their sex lives, but on the basis of conformity to social norms. And the dangers, especially for girls, of misbehaviour were very severe. Without reliable contraception or easy access to abortion, self-control was a necessary weapon against the terrible stigma of teen pregnancy or worse. Religious teaching of course played a part, but in a negative sense: reminding people of the terrible spiritual consequences of misbehaviour rather than the potential for grace and forgiveness.
Now social pressure runs the other way (it is a truism to say!). 75% of people think pre-marital sex is fine. Religious groups are in decline. The public square is saturated with sexual images. It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don't hurt anyone. It is 'part of a life' - felt to be part of really living. Girls and boys are taught that to be a full person you need to express your sexual self, not exercise restraint. And their bodily appetites confirm this.
This is where a theological account of human nature needs to come in. Whereas before, conformity to social norms made celibacy humanly possible, the new context makes it (for many people) humanly impossible. And this is where just telling people to try harder, or getting them to make pledges, or take cold showers, is bound to fail. Or, it gives them false hope in their ability to master themselves. It trusts too much in the flesh over which we have in the end so little power - without the Spirit of God. If you are a youth leader wondering how on earth you can tell your young people to keep their hands off each other, well let us acknowledge the reality of the situation: it is impossible. It is impossible because of social convention, because consequential arguments don't convince, and because human flesh is weak.
But Jesus said:
With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God. This applies to randy teenagers as much as to greedy rich men. With the Spirit of God, it is possible even for young people to remain celibate until they are married. I am convinced that this is the teaching of the Bible, which is good for human beings - even when they can't explain how. If it weren't at least sometimes the case that the Word of God asked of us something that runs counter to what is apparently reasonable and decent in the contemporary world, I would doubt that it was the Word of God!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
On the family - 2
Question 6 What do you believe are some of the shifts in family values since you have
become a parent while adhering to the Anglican moral code?
Well, I am not quite sure what the question is trying to get at... but I have noticed that people in the community are crying out for guidance as to how to be good parents. Parenting is an enormously fraught business, and it makes us extremely vulnerable in a lot of ways. I am amazed at the quality and the passion of discussion in magazines like 'Sydney's Child'. What I have noticed too is that while people might have a personal morality which is quite libertarian and agnostic, they are sending their kids to church schools in droves. They are somehow not happy with their kids being taught liberal values in the state system. I am not sure they are 100% signed up to what Christian and church schools are offering, but they can see that having 'Christian values' is a lot better than what the state systems are offering.
I have noticed that some parents are afraid to discipline their children at all for fear of crushing the spirit and expressive creativity of the child. We are not, I would have thought, strict parents: we don't smack our children, for example. And I am all for encouraging creativity and spontaneity in children, and allowing them to enjoy themselves. But we have encountered parents who don't discipline their children AT ALL.
become a parent while adhering to the Anglican moral code?
Well, I am not quite sure what the question is trying to get at... but I have noticed that people in the community are crying out for guidance as to how to be good parents. Parenting is an enormously fraught business, and it makes us extremely vulnerable in a lot of ways. I am amazed at the quality and the passion of discussion in magazines like 'Sydney's Child'. What I have noticed too is that while people might have a personal morality which is quite libertarian and agnostic, they are sending their kids to church schools in droves. They are somehow not happy with their kids being taught liberal values in the state system. I am not sure they are 100% signed up to what Christian and church schools are offering, but they can see that having 'Christian values' is a lot better than what the state systems are offering.
I have noticed that some parents are afraid to discipline their children at all for fear of crushing the spirit and expressive creativity of the child. We are not, I would have thought, strict parents: we don't smack our children, for example. And I am all for encouraging creativity and spontaneity in children, and allowing them to enjoy themselves. But we have encountered parents who don't discipline their children AT ALL.
Friday, August 22, 2008
On the family in Australia - 1
My answers to some questions put to me by a friend doing a uni assignment on 'family values'.
Question 1 What do you believe is the current state of 'family values' in Australia today?
From the outset I would say that I am not sure what 'family values' are, though I know what they are usually held to mean in public and political discourse in Australia - a kind of social conservatism about policies effecting domestic life. I think the terminology itself needs to be questioned and clarified, especially by Christians - and I am sorry that various Christian groups have chosen to use this terminology as medium of expression. The Christian gospel is about the free offer of forgiveness to people of all family backgrounds and none, and the welcoming of them into God's own family. Christians call each other brother and sister because they now share together the same heavenly Father. It's about following a person, Jesus Christ, rather than subscribing to a set of 'values' or principles. So if it has anything to do with family values so-called, it is in a very secondary sense.
If we mean to talk about 'the family and how it is upheld and supported': well, it is a complex picture: I think Australians are very family-oriented in some respects. As in most Western cultures, this means for us the small, nuclear family with just a few members rather than the extended family. You do hear Australians talking about 'putting the family first' and so on. But, there is a tension: we also sense that having a family is a trap, socially and economically. So, people are putting off marriage or marriage-like relationships until later, and then also putting off children. Economics plays a big part here: Australians are working harder than ever before to give their families the lifestyle they think they need - or not having a family because they think it will be too expensive.
This is actually putting a lot of pressure on families, on the one hand, and producing a generation of singletons on the other. It is much harder for families who would prefer it if one parent was able to stay at home with the kids to actually make that choice than it was even twenty years ago.
Question 2 Where do you believe we are going right/wrong in regard to these values?
Well, it depends who you mean by 'we'! Do you mean 'Australia as a society' or 'the governments of Australia'? We have lost this distinction quite a bit in our society - we expect the government to do everything for us and to engineer society to reflect and inspire our 'values'. We have forgotten that we need not wait for this to happen, or that in some respects the government has no business telling us what our family values are or are not. This is a real limiter to public discourse about the family and relationships in our society: that we can only think in terms of what is legal or illegal, and not have a civilised discussion about what we think is right or wrong (or perhaps, wise and unwise). So, importantly, we are going wrong in the way we frame the discussion in public.
Inevitably, however, I acknowledge that it is more complex than this. We do have to have divorce laws; we do have to decide what we together think 'marriage' is or isn't. We do have to make policies about work and how these will effect people trying to live in family units.
I think we as a society have lost the work-rest balance and fallen for the trap of thinking that material prosperity will bring us happiness and security. I think we have forgotten how important it is to just spend time together. It was amazing to visit regional France recently and find all the shops closed on a Sunday, because it was the traditional family day - and the parks and beaches were full! This seemed a very sensible way to live. We Australians used to be good at this: we were known for being laid back. I think we are now quite uptight. Speaking in general terms, we have lost the ability to enjoy life - which, as a Christian theologian, I think means we have lost the ability to recognise the goodness and beauty of the world God made.
Ironically, conservative governments have often made life harder for families while apparently supporting them.
Question 3 What are your personal moral values and how do these compare with that of the Anglican Church?
That's a hard question to answer, because the Anglican Church in Australia is divided into regional groups called dioceses, and each diocese is free to make its own policies as it tries to express its obedience to the Christian gospel by reading the Scriptures.
On the whole, I agree with the stance on most moral issues that my own diocese, the diocese of Sydney, takes. But I regard my personal moral values as open to change as I read and re-read and reflect on the Bible and on the life and character of Jesus. I hope that not only my personal values will be changed but indeed my own character.
And of course, it is not just a matter of having moral values, it is a matter of following Christ in what we do as well. We could do much much more, but I think the way in which we seek to support the community through welfare work and charity, and in advocacy for the poor and socially deprived, refugees and asylum seekers, and those in prison are expressions of the church's moral values to which I would wholeheartedly subscribe.
Question 4 Are there any claims that you would disallow as constituting a 'proper family'?
Again, it depends who is asking, and why. I do not have in mind a strict definition of 'proper family' - the Bible doesn't speak in these terms, and actually talks about some very unorthodox families indeed!
Most often this kind of question comes up in public debate when we are discussing what are in reality fringe or extreme cases: can a lesbian couple get public funding for IVF and so on. These cases effect a minuscule amount of people to be fair, and are quite uninteresting in terms of shaping our ethics overall. The trouble is, we tend to start our discussion of ethics for the whole community from this point and ask, 'what can we allow?' instead of saying 'what is the picture we would like to aspire to?'
I do think - and I think most Australians agree with me, religious or not - there is a special place for the ideal of a monogamous relationship of life -time commitment between a man and woman open to the welcoming of children into the world. We can have this ideal and encourage it and support it and still recognise that human life is inevitably more complicated than this. In the Bible there is a special emphasis placed on caring for 'widows and orphans' - those who do not have the security and love of a family in the ordinary sense - so already there you see a recognition that not everybody lives in a family with two parents and a number of kids. So, rather than discounting various forms of life-sharing as proper families or not, I think this particular form of it ought to be accorded a special honour in the community - as is generally
the case today.
I would be supportive of same-sex couples being afforded the same protections as de facto heterosexual couples as regards their wills, and their assets and so on, as a matter of natural justice. But I don't think these arrangements are marriages - I don't think it is wrong for the community to reserve this designation for differently gendered relationships.
Question 5 From your position in the Church, are there any types of 'families' that you
would claim to have a negative impact on society and run counter to 'family
values'?
No, not really. I think the media wants to portray the church as sounding quite panicked at this point. And we aren't! Besides which, if something is wrong, its wrongness isn't measured merely by its impact. If polygamy, for example, could turn out to be quite positive in its impact, then that wouldn't change my view on it (I'm against).
Actually, the polygamy example is interesting: most liberal/secular Australians, and particularly feminists, would be opposed to polygamy as a type of family arrangement, and would think that it ought to be illegal, or treated with extreme caution under the law. So, our community doesn't believe that in 'anything goes' as far as types of families are concerned. But what is going to give us our standards? On the whole the reason why we in the West don't have polygamy is precisely because of our Christian heritage.
I do think when parents follow their own personal and sexual fulfillment as their right over their duties to their families then we will see a generation of children who bear the scars. I think experience is actually bearing this out. The baby boomers on the whole have been dreadful parents! My experience of teaching in a relatively wealthy school was that it was very obvious which kids felt abandoned and neglected by their parents. And it was obvious which families had become afraid to say 'no' to their children too. Families with parents who are never home aren't helping, certainly. That is definitely counter to family values.
There are of course certain types of very religious families that have a negative impact on society in that they teach a hostility to the community and that it is necessary to withdraw from it.
I think, too, that when parents fail to give appropriate boundaries and guidelines to their children and their teens, then this has an extremely negative impact.
Question 1 What do you believe is the current state of 'family values' in Australia today?
From the outset I would say that I am not sure what 'family values' are, though I know what they are usually held to mean in public and political discourse in Australia - a kind of social conservatism about policies effecting domestic life. I think the terminology itself needs to be questioned and clarified, especially by Christians - and I am sorry that various Christian groups have chosen to use this terminology as medium of expression. The Christian gospel is about the free offer of forgiveness to people of all family backgrounds and none, and the welcoming of them into God's own family. Christians call each other brother and sister because they now share together the same heavenly Father. It's about following a person, Jesus Christ, rather than subscribing to a set of 'values' or principles. So if it has anything to do with family values so-called, it is in a very secondary sense.
If we mean to talk about 'the family and how it is upheld and supported': well, it is a complex picture: I think Australians are very family-oriented in some respects. As in most Western cultures, this means for us the small, nuclear family with just a few members rather than the extended family. You do hear Australians talking about 'putting the family first' and so on. But, there is a tension: we also sense that having a family is a trap, socially and economically. So, people are putting off marriage or marriage-like relationships until later, and then also putting off children. Economics plays a big part here: Australians are working harder than ever before to give their families the lifestyle they think they need - or not having a family because they think it will be too expensive.
This is actually putting a lot of pressure on families, on the one hand, and producing a generation of singletons on the other. It is much harder for families who would prefer it if one parent was able to stay at home with the kids to actually make that choice than it was even twenty years ago.
Question 2 Where do you believe we are going right/wrong in regard to these values?
Well, it depends who you mean by 'we'! Do you mean 'Australia as a society' or 'the governments of Australia'? We have lost this distinction quite a bit in our society - we expect the government to do everything for us and to engineer society to reflect and inspire our 'values'. We have forgotten that we need not wait for this to happen, or that in some respects the government has no business telling us what our family values are or are not. This is a real limiter to public discourse about the family and relationships in our society: that we can only think in terms of what is legal or illegal, and not have a civilised discussion about what we think is right or wrong (or perhaps, wise and unwise). So, importantly, we are going wrong in the way we frame the discussion in public.
Inevitably, however, I acknowledge that it is more complex than this. We do have to have divorce laws; we do have to decide what we together think 'marriage' is or isn't. We do have to make policies about work and how these will effect people trying to live in family units.
I think we as a society have lost the work-rest balance and fallen for the trap of thinking that material prosperity will bring us happiness and security. I think we have forgotten how important it is to just spend time together. It was amazing to visit regional France recently and find all the shops closed on a Sunday, because it was the traditional family day - and the parks and beaches were full! This seemed a very sensible way to live. We Australians used to be good at this: we were known for being laid back. I think we are now quite uptight. Speaking in general terms, we have lost the ability to enjoy life - which, as a Christian theologian, I think means we have lost the ability to recognise the goodness and beauty of the world God made.
Ironically, conservative governments have often made life harder for families while apparently supporting them.
Question 3 What are your personal moral values and how do these compare with that of the Anglican Church?
That's a hard question to answer, because the Anglican Church in Australia is divided into regional groups called dioceses, and each diocese is free to make its own policies as it tries to express its obedience to the Christian gospel by reading the Scriptures.
On the whole, I agree with the stance on most moral issues that my own diocese, the diocese of Sydney, takes. But I regard my personal moral values as open to change as I read and re-read and reflect on the Bible and on the life and character of Jesus. I hope that not only my personal values will be changed but indeed my own character.
And of course, it is not just a matter of having moral values, it is a matter of following Christ in what we do as well. We could do much much more, but I think the way in which we seek to support the community through welfare work and charity, and in advocacy for the poor and socially deprived, refugees and asylum seekers, and those in prison are expressions of the church's moral values to which I would wholeheartedly subscribe.
Question 4 Are there any claims that you would disallow as constituting a 'proper family'?
Again, it depends who is asking, and why. I do not have in mind a strict definition of 'proper family' - the Bible doesn't speak in these terms, and actually talks about some very unorthodox families indeed!
Most often this kind of question comes up in public debate when we are discussing what are in reality fringe or extreme cases: can a lesbian couple get public funding for IVF and so on. These cases effect a minuscule amount of people to be fair, and are quite uninteresting in terms of shaping our ethics overall. The trouble is, we tend to start our discussion of ethics for the whole community from this point and ask, 'what can we allow?' instead of saying 'what is the picture we would like to aspire to?'
I do think - and I think most Australians agree with me, religious or not - there is a special place for the ideal of a monogamous relationship of life -time commitment between a man and woman open to the welcoming of children into the world. We can have this ideal and encourage it and support it and still recognise that human life is inevitably more complicated than this. In the Bible there is a special emphasis placed on caring for 'widows and orphans' - those who do not have the security and love of a family in the ordinary sense - so already there you see a recognition that not everybody lives in a family with two parents and a number of kids. So, rather than discounting various forms of life-sharing as proper families or not, I think this particular form of it ought to be accorded a special honour in the community - as is generally
the case today.
I would be supportive of same-sex couples being afforded the same protections as de facto heterosexual couples as regards their wills, and their assets and so on, as a matter of natural justice. But I don't think these arrangements are marriages - I don't think it is wrong for the community to reserve this designation for differently gendered relationships.
Question 5 From your position in the Church, are there any types of 'families' that you
would claim to have a negative impact on society and run counter to 'family
values'?
No, not really. I think the media wants to portray the church as sounding quite panicked at this point. And we aren't! Besides which, if something is wrong, its wrongness isn't measured merely by its impact. If polygamy, for example, could turn out to be quite positive in its impact, then that wouldn't change my view on it (I'm against).
Actually, the polygamy example is interesting: most liberal/secular Australians, and particularly feminists, would be opposed to polygamy as a type of family arrangement, and would think that it ought to be illegal, or treated with extreme caution under the law. So, our community doesn't believe that in 'anything goes' as far as types of families are concerned. But what is going to give us our standards? On the whole the reason why we in the West don't have polygamy is precisely because of our Christian heritage.
I do think when parents follow their own personal and sexual fulfillment as their right over their duties to their families then we will see a generation of children who bear the scars. I think experience is actually bearing this out. The baby boomers on the whole have been dreadful parents! My experience of teaching in a relatively wealthy school was that it was very obvious which kids felt abandoned and neglected by their parents. And it was obvious which families had become afraid to say 'no' to their children too. Families with parents who are never home aren't helping, certainly. That is definitely counter to family values.
There are of course certain types of very religious families that have a negative impact on society in that they teach a hostility to the community and that it is necessary to withdraw from it.
I think, too, that when parents fail to give appropriate boundaries and guidelines to their children and their teens, then this has an extremely negative impact.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Anonymous comments...
Apologies for the loss of my blogging mojo of late... can't explain it. Must be the warm weather here in England...
Is there ever a case for making commenting anonymously on blogs/discussion boards and the like?
I admit, I have done it once or twice. But, as a rule, I think it is something a Christian person would not do. I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth - or, at least, the reader of those words loses the opportunity to evaluate the truth of the words by the character and actions of the writer. Words are of their nature personal, and by anonymity become depersonalised, and unanswerable - a status no human word should really have.
The same would hold for writing anonymous letters: what is the case for ever writing one? What circumstances would justify it? How does anonymity transform it as a speech-act?
The counter argument would be that anonymous comment allows the vulnerable and the fearful to have a voice where they might not have. But even so, I would call these exceptional circumstances.
Is there ever a case for making commenting anonymously on blogs/discussion boards and the like?
I admit, I have done it once or twice. But, as a rule, I think it is something a Christian person would not do. I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth - or, at least, the reader of those words loses the opportunity to evaluate the truth of the words by the character and actions of the writer. Words are of their nature personal, and by anonymity become depersonalised, and unanswerable - a status no human word should really have.
The same would hold for writing anonymous letters: what is the case for ever writing one? What circumstances would justify it? How does anonymity transform it as a speech-act?
The counter argument would be that anonymous comment allows the vulnerable and the fearful to have a voice where they might not have. But even so, I would call these exceptional circumstances.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why Christians are not people of principle
I read a terrific book by Stanley Fish once, called The Trouble with Principle.
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
Thursday, April 03, 2008
A Taylorean Glossary for Theologians - VI
The Immanent Frame In trying to describe the 'conditions of belief' which now obtain in the modern West, Taylor coins the term 'The Immanent Frame'. The buffered self which arises in the age of Reform (of which more later) moves in a constructed social space 'where instrumental rationality is a key value, and time is pervasively secular' (The Secular Age, p. 542).
In addition, this frame constitutes now the 'natural' order as distinct from the 'supernatural' one. Instead of the two orders being intertwined, the transcendent is now seen as quite separate from the immanent - which condition of course makes it possible later on to disavow the transcendent altogether.
So, the rise of the individual, now called to a more rigorous and disciplined life in the affirmed ordinary world, coupled with the emphasis on constructive action (because Providence itself now works via the medium of human action) and seen in the context of time now measured accurately by machines rather than charted by prophets or seers in epochal terms - these conditions comprise 'the immanent frame'.
If you are to be a religious believer, you have to believe against the backdrop of these conditions of belief, then.
In addition, this frame constitutes now the 'natural' order as distinct from the 'supernatural' one. Instead of the two orders being intertwined, the transcendent is now seen as quite separate from the immanent - which condition of course makes it possible later on to disavow the transcendent altogether.
So, the rise of the individual, now called to a more rigorous and disciplined life in the affirmed ordinary world, coupled with the emphasis on constructive action (because Providence itself now works via the medium of human action) and seen in the context of time now measured accurately by machines rather than charted by prophets or seers in epochal terms - these conditions comprise 'the immanent frame'.
If you are to be a religious believer, you have to believe against the backdrop of these conditions of belief, then.
A Taylorean Glossary for Theologians - V
Horizons of Significance For Taylor, our selfhood is necessarily dialogical. We are selves with reference to 'horizons of significance', as he explains in his The Ethics of Authenticity.
Personal authenticity can’t be defended in ways that deny horizons of significance. In fact (and here Taylor is especially suggestive of the theological) even the sense that choice is the root of my personal significance is grounded on the understanding that ‘independent of my will there is something noble, courageous, and hence significant in giving shape to my own life’.(p. 39)
Horizons of significance come to us from outside of ourselves: they are given. There is already, anterior to the choices of the individual, a picture (or pictures) of what human beings are like, or ought to be. Even positing self-choice in itself as a moral ideal requires that there are choices that themselves are significant. As Taylor says, ‘[I] can define my identity only against the background of things that matter’ (p. 40); and if I am to bracket out from consideration history, nature, society and everything except for that which I find in myself, I am surely not choosing for myself anything other than the trivial. ‘Authenticity is not the enemy of demands that emanate from beyond the self; it supposes such demands’ (p. 41). Some reference to the self-transcending – whether God, nature, nation, ideology or whatever else – is necessary for authentic selfhood. Choice itself cannot be basic.
Fair enough: but is it a distraction to see this as pre-theological in some way? Can we just substitute in any 'horizon', as if there were ready made alternatives that we could just attatch?
Personal authenticity can’t be defended in ways that deny horizons of significance. In fact (and here Taylor is especially suggestive of the theological) even the sense that choice is the root of my personal significance is grounded on the understanding that ‘independent of my will there is something noble, courageous, and hence significant in giving shape to my own life’.(p. 39)
Horizons of significance come to us from outside of ourselves: they are given. There is already, anterior to the choices of the individual, a picture (or pictures) of what human beings are like, or ought to be. Even positing self-choice in itself as a moral ideal requires that there are choices that themselves are significant. As Taylor says, ‘[I] can define my identity only against the background of things that matter’ (p. 40); and if I am to bracket out from consideration history, nature, society and everything except for that which I find in myself, I am surely not choosing for myself anything other than the trivial. ‘Authenticity is not the enemy of demands that emanate from beyond the self; it supposes such demands’ (p. 41). Some reference to the self-transcending – whether God, nature, nation, ideology or whatever else – is necessary for authentic selfhood. Choice itself cannot be basic.
Fair enough: but is it a distraction to see this as pre-theological in some way? Can we just substitute in any 'horizon', as if there were ready made alternatives that we could just attatch?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A Taylorean Glossary for Theologians III
By the way, you really must check out The Immanent Frame.
Social Imaginary Taylor uses this term in his latest work The Secular Age, but also in Modern Social Imagineries. He means by it to indicate something of the way people imagine their social existence. It is crucially an act of imagination rather than an intellectual scheme: it involves the myths and stories and legends that we tell about our common life and identity, and so on. As Taylor puts it, he means how people 'fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations'. (MSI, p. 23)This term, then, can include the way ordinary people think about their common identity as well as a more elitist, theoretical account.
Of course, it is a complex business to describe a social imaginary, because it is a complex idea! It 'incorporates a sense of the normal expectations we have of each other, the kind of common understanding that enables to carry out the collective practices that make up our social life.' (MSI, p. 24) And yet, this term is crucial for Taylor's project: because it is 'social imaginaries', modern and less modern, that he is largely in the business of describing. It is part of his intellectual bravery that he is willing to embark on such a risky strategy, because it is so obviously open to challenge at every point of the description.
Social Imaginary Taylor uses this term in his latest work The Secular Age, but also in Modern Social Imagineries. He means by it to indicate something of the way people imagine their social existence. It is crucially an act of imagination rather than an intellectual scheme: it involves the myths and stories and legends that we tell about our common life and identity, and so on. As Taylor puts it, he means how people 'fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations'. (MSI, p. 23)This term, then, can include the way ordinary people think about their common identity as well as a more elitist, theoretical account.
Of course, it is a complex business to describe a social imaginary, because it is a complex idea! It 'incorporates a sense of the normal expectations we have of each other, the kind of common understanding that enables to carry out the collective practices that make up our social life.' (MSI, p. 24) And yet, this term is crucial for Taylor's project: because it is 'social imaginaries', modern and less modern, that he is largely in the business of describing. It is part of his intellectual bravery that he is willing to embark on such a risky strategy, because it is so obviously open to challenge at every point of the description.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
A Taylorean Glossary for Theologians - II
The Affirmation of Ordinary Life: This term is probably not really a Taylorean invention, but it features very prominently in his account of the history of ideas. As he says, the affirmation of ordinary life 'has become one of the most powerful ideas in modern civilisation' (Sources of the Self , p. 14). Though it has avowedly secular variants (such as utilitarianism), it is a term associated with the theological shift in the Reformation period away from the spirituality of the elite and towards the sanctification of the everyday. 'With the Reformation, we find a modern, Christian-inspired sense that ordinary life was..the very centre of the good life.' (p. 13). You could, with Luther, praise God while changing a baby's nappy. You could labour in your dead-end job and still possess the dignity and spirituality of a monk.
The fruit of this affirmation of the ordinary include a protest against needless suffering and an emphasis on human welfare and dignity. And it underlies much of political self-understanding in the West even today.
The fruit of this affirmation of the ordinary include a protest against needless suffering and an emphasis on human welfare and dignity. And it underlies much of political self-understanding in the West even today.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Ricoeur on Literature & Ethics
A moment of clarity looms up through the fog:
There is no ethically neutral narrative. Literature is a vast laboratory in which we experiment with estimations, evaluations, and judgments of approval and condemnation through which narrativity serves as a propaedeutic to ethics. Oneself as Another, p. 115
[propaedeutic = 'a prelimary body of knowledge or rules necessary for the study of some art or science']
There is no ethically neutral narrative. Literature is a vast laboratory in which we experiment with estimations, evaluations, and judgments of approval and condemnation through which narrativity serves as a propaedeutic to ethics. Oneself as Another, p. 115
[propaedeutic = 'a prelimary body of knowledge or rules necessary for the study of some art or science']
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Emotions and ethics
Once, a while back, I mused about cuteness and its relevance for ethics. It seems to me that our affective reactions are by and large not part of the way we frame discussion of ethics, in the churches or in the West in general.
Charles Taylor writes this:
Modern enlightened culture is very theory-oriented. We tend to live in our heads, trusting our disengaged understandings: of experience, of beauty (we can't really accept that it's telling us anything, unless about our own feelings); even the ethical: we think that the only valid form of ethical self-directon is through rational mazims or understanding. We can't accept that part of being good is opening oursleves to certain feelings; either the horror at infacticide, or agape as a gut feeling. The Secular Age, p. 555
Of course, the picture is more complicated than this. In one sense, the West celebrates and even sacralises the expression of feelings.
Charles Taylor writes this:
Modern enlightened culture is very theory-oriented. We tend to live in our heads, trusting our disengaged understandings: of experience, of beauty (we can't really accept that it's telling us anything, unless about our own feelings); even the ethical: we think that the only valid form of ethical self-directon is through rational mazims or understanding. We can't accept that part of being good is opening oursleves to certain feelings; either the horror at infacticide, or agape as a gut feeling. The Secular Age, p. 555
Of course, the picture is more complicated than this. In one sense, the West celebrates and even sacralises the expression of feelings.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Reading the Bible in the old South Africa
Richard Burridge, who wrote a remarkable work on the genre of the gospels, has a new book called Imitating Jesus - An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. While I have yet to discover what he means by 'inclusive' - a word that normally makes me reach for my gun, because it is a such a loaded term - I have been impressed by his determination to recover the role of the Bible, and of the Biblical Jesus, in ethics. He relates the problem to the apartheid era in South Africa, when genuine Christians prayerfully earnestly and intelligently reading their Bibles decided that it supported racism. Does this mean that the Bible ought to be rejected, because it is open to such uses? By no means: though merely appealing to the Bible does not guarantee good reading of it.
Interestingly, he quotes CESA Bishop Frank Retief's submission, made in 1997, to a hearing of 'Faith Communities'.
...when the government made legislation that accorded with our moral or biblical understanding, we supported them. However, on the great issue of justice for all, we were often insensitive. We had not made the connection between gospel and society...We were witnesses to how the Bible and its message can be misused to support an evil ideology. National government used the Bible to support its policies, to give the impression that they were a Christian government. But then so did some liberation theologians who finally supported violence as a means of continuing the struggle...Where we have been negligent, careless and insensitive to biblical injunctions and mandates as we have been, may the Lord graciously forgive us....The fact that the Bible was used in the past to condone injustice does not mean its true message may be ignored today...It is our belief that this day and hour calls for men and women of conviction and integrity to apply the message of the Bible more accurately and faithfully to our emerging society... p. 397-8
I have met Bishop Frank and heard him speak, and I find this an impressive and moving statement. But, Burridge asks, what gives him and others (and the rest of us) confidence that we aren't making similar mistakes now?
Burridge gives an analysis of how the South African churches got into this mess - and notes on the one hand a lack of self-criticism and on the other a theology which overlooked the central place of Jesus for all Christian ethics. Could a church that was actually prioritising Jesus - the Jesus of the gospels, but also the Jesus of Paul and the other authors of the NT - have allowed itself to lapse so badly? Make no mistake, there was some sophisticated theological and exegetical work done in the theological faculties of South Africa in the apartheid era... but, says Burridge, the voice of Jesus was strangely silent even so.
So, argues Burridge, if churches want to avoid falling into the group-think which has resulted in such terrible misusing the Bible, they need to practice self-reflection and self-criticism as a matter of course. And also, they ought to pay attention to Jesus.
[Note: to any South African readers - I am only here reporting from Burridge. I cannot know and do not pretend to know what it was to live in those times and to be a Christian in those times. Nor do I know what it is to live as a Christian with this as a legacy - though Australian Christians have made their own mistakes of course.]
Interestingly, he quotes CESA Bishop Frank Retief's submission, made in 1997, to a hearing of 'Faith Communities'.
...when the government made legislation that accorded with our moral or biblical understanding, we supported them. However, on the great issue of justice for all, we were often insensitive. We had not made the connection between gospel and society...We were witnesses to how the Bible and its message can be misused to support an evil ideology. National government used the Bible to support its policies, to give the impression that they were a Christian government. But then so did some liberation theologians who finally supported violence as a means of continuing the struggle...Where we have been negligent, careless and insensitive to biblical injunctions and mandates as we have been, may the Lord graciously forgive us....The fact that the Bible was used in the past to condone injustice does not mean its true message may be ignored today...It is our belief that this day and hour calls for men and women of conviction and integrity to apply the message of the Bible more accurately and faithfully to our emerging society... p. 397-8
I have met Bishop Frank and heard him speak, and I find this an impressive and moving statement. But, Burridge asks, what gives him and others (and the rest of us) confidence that we aren't making similar mistakes now?
Burridge gives an analysis of how the South African churches got into this mess - and notes on the one hand a lack of self-criticism and on the other a theology which overlooked the central place of Jesus for all Christian ethics. Could a church that was actually prioritising Jesus - the Jesus of the gospels, but also the Jesus of Paul and the other authors of the NT - have allowed itself to lapse so badly? Make no mistake, there was some sophisticated theological and exegetical work done in the theological faculties of South Africa in the apartheid era... but, says Burridge, the voice of Jesus was strangely silent even so.
So, argues Burridge, if churches want to avoid falling into the group-think which has resulted in such terrible misusing the Bible, they need to practice self-reflection and self-criticism as a matter of course. And also, they ought to pay attention to Jesus.
[Note: to any South African readers - I am only here reporting from Burridge. I cannot know and do not pretend to know what it was to live in those times and to be a Christian in those times. Nor do I know what it is to live as a Christian with this as a legacy - though Australian Christians have made their own mistakes of course.]
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Hauerwas - oh, it's provocative and its brilliant!
One of my favourite Hauerwas quotes:
'One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend.'
'One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend.'
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
O'Donovan on the foundations of ethics
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?
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?
Fergus Kerr on Charles Taylor
Kerr's book Immortal Longings is a magnificent treatment of the subject of the self in contemporary philosophy and theology. Of Charles Taylor he says (rightly I think):
...Taylor insists that some explanatory frameworks give us a better sense of reality than others. True, it is not easy to judge one superior to another without appealing to epistemological foundations that stand outside all frameworks, or merely to list the technological achievements of Western science (say). There can be no going back on the lesson of modern philosophy: we have no access to sources of knowledge independently of whatever conceptual scheme we have in place. But pragmatic success is not a good enough criterion either: for one thing, what counts as success may vary from one society to another. p. 137
...Taylor insists that some explanatory frameworks give us a better sense of reality than others. True, it is not easy to judge one superior to another without appealing to epistemological foundations that stand outside all frameworks, or merely to list the technological achievements of Western science (say). There can be no going back on the lesson of modern philosophy: we have no access to sources of knowledge independently of whatever conceptual scheme we have in place. But pragmatic success is not a good enough criterion either: for one thing, what counts as success may vary from one society to another. p. 137
Can Morality Be Christian? John Milbank
I have only come lately to this essay by Milbank, and what a piece of provocation it is! The answer is, in short, no: morality cannot be Christian! It is quite a Protestant piece for him. He ends thus, with his best impersonation of Luther in full cry:
So no, the Christian man is not a moral man, not a man of good conscience, who acts with what he knows of death, scarcity and duty to totalities. He has a bad conscience, but a good confidence: for he acts ith what he does not know but has faith in. In absolute trust he gives up trying to be good, to sustain a right order of government within himself. The Romans that Paul wrote to did this already, but they still needed a letter from Paul - to hear what? Simply to hear the other, receive the other, and through the other receive the gratuitous God. Cease to be self-sufficient in the face of scarcity. Instead to be good as first receiving from the all-sufficiency of God, and acting excessively out of this excess.
So no, the Christian man is not a moral man, not a man of good conscience, who acts with what he knows of death, scarcity and duty to totalities. He has a bad conscience, but a good confidence: for he acts ith what he does not know but has faith in. In absolute trust he gives up trying to be good, to sustain a right order of government within himself. The Romans that Paul wrote to did this already, but they still needed a letter from Paul - to hear what? Simply to hear the other, receive the other, and through the other receive the gratuitous God. Cease to be self-sufficient in the face of scarcity. Instead to be good as first receiving from the all-sufficiency of God, and acting excessively out of this excess.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
hybrids...
This email was passed on to me this evening:
As you may know a Bill shortly due to come before Parliament would permit experiments that much of the world would like to see outlawed. Scientists will be permitted to create 'true hybrids', embryos that would have a human parent and a nonhuman parent. These embryos would be destroyed at 14 days but the question remains: what kind of creatures would they be? In every country law and ethics distinguishes human embryos from pig embryos. What then should be said of a half human half pig embryo? I believe that we are in danger of following Dr Moreau in the novel by HG Wells, who says of his animal-human creations, 'I went on with this research just the way it led me. I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.'If you like me are opposed to the creation of human nonhuman hybrids (and perhaps like me more than a little sceptical of the supposed necessity for the research) then please sign the following petitions and also pass on this email.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/stemcell/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HybridEmbryos/
Professor David A Jones
Professor of Bioethics
St Mary's University College,
Twickenham
As you may know a Bill shortly due to come before Parliament would permit experiments that much of the world would like to see outlawed. Scientists will be permitted to create 'true hybrids', embryos that would have a human parent and a nonhuman parent. These embryos would be destroyed at 14 days but the question remains: what kind of creatures would they be? In every country law and ethics distinguishes human embryos from pig embryos. What then should be said of a half human half pig embryo? I believe that we are in danger of following Dr Moreau in the novel by HG Wells, who says of his animal-human creations, 'I went on with this research just the way it led me. I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.'If you like me are opposed to the creation of human nonhuman hybrids (and perhaps like me more than a little sceptical of the supposed necessity for the research) then please sign the following petitions and also pass on this email.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/stemcell/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HybridEmbryos/
Professor David A Jones
Professor of Bioethics
St Mary's University College,
Twickenham
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Barth and Kant
We cannot deal evasively with Jesus Christ as one does with an idea.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.ii.660
While Barth concedes that Kant 'has expressed the essential concern of Christian ethic by pointing out that of itself the concept of what is pleasing and useful and valuable does not give us the concept of what is obligatory', he also takes Kant to task for not acknowledging the reality that God's command may indeed result in what is pleasing and good:
The obligation revealed and grounded in the person and work and lordship of Jesus Christ fulfils the idea in all its strictness. It is a categorical imperative, not merely in name, but in fact. And as such - unlike the Kantian imperative - it reveals the fact that to obey it is not merely the highest duty but also the highest good.
Jesus Christ is our categorical imperative!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Barth and responsibility
This week: a chance to get a handle on Barth's 'divine command' ethics. Very refreshing after wallowing about in rather dry natural law thought. Of course the divine command is the gospel of Jesus Christ (Barth would say 'Jesus', but I am happy to offer him modest correction!) For Barth, ‘responsibility’ sums up the human situation before God who addresses us:
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance, 2d ed., 14 vols. (London ; New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004), II.ii, p. 641.
‘It is the idea of responsibility which gives us the most exact definition of the human situation in face of the absolute transcendence of the divine judgment. We live in responsibility, which means that our being and willing, what we do and what we do not do, is a continuous answer to the Word of God spoken to us as a command.’
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance, 2d ed., 14 vols. (London ; New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004), II.ii, p. 641.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)