Lesson 15: The Simplest Christian Ethic

Comments

3 responses to “Lesson 15: The Simplest Christian Ethic”

1. May 22, 2013

   Bob Nordvall

   I agree that people find this simplest Christian ethic to be impossible, but not necessarily immoral. Of course all ethics are “impossible” in the sense that man as a sinner will not be completely ethical. Also the idea of overcoming evil with love is so counter-intuitive that it seems overly idealistic.

   We live in a world whose structure, culture, and laws are profoundly not Christian. How do we square that with our Christian aspirations? One way is to avoid the “simplest Christian ethic” by finding other passages and rules in the Bible (an eye for an eye) that are more consistent with our actual practices. There is an obvious conflict between the ethics of the Old Testament and the New Testament, especially towards “enemies,” that can easily be exploited to justify a large range of actions that don’t fit Jesus’ simple, radical teaching.

   The result of all this is that following the “simplest Christian ethic” becomes an act so radical, so counter-cultural, so “overly idealistic” that very few people have the psychological, ethical, moral, etc. resources to do so. This has been so at least since 312 A.D. when Christianity took a “wrong turn” and became a state religion. At that point Christian ethics changed from that of a small, persecuted sect to that of society at large.

   Reply
2. May 22, 2013

   Rita Yeasted

   Maybe because we’re human, and we’re far more influenced by our upbringing and life experiences–and the ideas of friends and family–than we’d like to admit. Education has some effect (or should) I think. For example, my father was a John Bircher, a good guy who voted Democratic, but was as anti-government as some of today’s Tea Partiers. I vividly remember running up the hill to our house when I got off the public bus from high school (we had no school bus–Catholic school in 50s) and watched the McCarthy hearings, sincerely believing (as my father did) that he was a national hero.

   That was then, this is now. I entered a convent and was re-educated on the spiritual life and the requirements to follow the Gospel. Then came Vatican II and the civil rights movement (and the Company at Kirkridge), and my politics have become more liberal the older I get. Not so most of my educated brothers and sisters, who are as conservative as I am liberal. I have found that interesting and sometimes distressing, but we grew up yet often did not really change those basic family values of my parents, yet we live them out very differently. Our allegiance to Church doctrine is obviously different as well.

   So I guess my observation is that people all hear the same Bible read on Sunday, but we filter it through our own life experience. If you’re a wealthy doctor like my brother, who “worked hard to get to where he is,” you are not as eager to share your wealth with those “lazy freeloaders” that only take and don’t give. You hear the same Beatitudes, and you filter them with your own life decisions and experience.

   Reply
3. May 22, 2013

   Derek

   I don’t think people find these Christian ethics to be immoral (perhaps almost impossible). However I think things are seen in a very different light when you attempt to transfer individual choice to government policy.

   For example if someone gave away all they possessed to the poor and glorified the Lord, they would be very well regarded.

   However if you attempt to transfer that concept to government policy then “give” becomes “take” and glorifying the Lord is left out entirely. That’s why “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs” remains associated with “godless commies” as opposed to any sort of Christian movement.

   Similarly following the example of Paul or Christ and being childless to focus on ministry and praying for and showing love to those who are killing you would be seen as exemplary in an individual. As government enforced policy those would probably be seen as crimes against humanity.

   That said I don’t think we should forget about ideals when considering policy. I think the current American concept that you need to separately compartmentalize government and religion means not only have we strayed in some case, but I think it also means those who are religious on the left have not felt the need to go through the mental process of harmonizing leftist/liberal policy and Christianity. Or if they have there has not been a movement to discuss it.

   Also I can’t help but feel that the origin of these policies stems from past (and current) failures of Christian churches to meet the needs of the poor and the widow and to create loving communities. As a result people, even Christians, are looking to “Caesar” to solve societies problems.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.