Ethics
Thinking about... Stuff
10/30/07 10:11 Categories: Church
I think I’m interested in Christian Ethics more than theology because of its practical nature. I’m a bit scared of intellectualism. That is a bit misleading. I am a deep intellectualist who has a hard time with faith often because my mind cannot understand all that ’spiritual stuff’. Ethics is a way that I can get at both - well maybe not exactly the ’spiritual stuff’, but definitely the ‘loving your neighbor’ stuff.
So, Emily and I were at church on sunday. Well, we were at our not-church church, which is to say it is some sort of house church which is still seeking to define itself. But during that time a couple things hit me: 1. Ethics is a possible bridge between the ivory tower and life! More importantly, 2. I think I approach God more intellectually than I should. I was watching Chris, who is a dad. His son was sleeping on his chest and Chris was enjoying the worship. His son knew that he was so safe, so secure, so loved. Somehow I think I’ve lost that with God. During worship I thought about God, about how I don’t go lie on his chest and enjoy his love and mercy. I almost don’t even know how to anymore. Maybe that is painting the picture a bit darker than it needs to be. The point is, God wants to be Chris to us. He wants us to come, let our guard down, and just snuggle up. To be cared for. That is one of the aspects of God. He also wants us to get on our feet and walk, but that does not need to be all the time. There are definitely times for rest, for comfort.
I once heard an analogy about God. A little boy wanted to cook his mom breakfast for mother’s day, so he tried his hand at pancakes. The pancakes didn’t really turn out and he completely trashed the kitchen. He was getting more and more frustrated throughout the whole process. Eventually his mom came into the kitchen, but instead of freaking out at the mess, she saw her son’s frustration and effort - she understood what he was trying to do. She gave him a big hug and helped him finish the pancakes and clean the kitchen. In a similar sort of way God is like that mom, helping to fix and clean up our mistakes. But I was also told that God wants us to grow up. To reach maturity - just as that mother wants the son to learn from his mistakes and become proficient at making pancakes and cleaning up the kitchen on his own. Right now I’m not so sure about that conclusion. It seems that the closer relationship is better in the midst of the brokenness. Yet, what really happens is that as the boy grows older, the relationship can stay just as close, but it takes on different characteristics. They don’t bond over messes, they bond over conversation, going for walks together, and all the new and different ways of relating.
I have associated that growing up with intellectualizing my faith. That is how we grow up to relate with God. But is that true? As in most cases, I think Jesus gives us a great example. If we are to take the Biblical story seriously, then he engaged with the Father by going about the Father’s work, which meant caring for the poor, healing the sick, fasting, praying, and there were some times for intellectual sparring. However, the point is that there was a deeper spiritual component - and by spiritual I mean supernatural, otherworldly, and mystifying - to his relationship to the Father. In essence, this spirituality is not only intellectually, or only concerned with social justice, or only concerned with living in a right way. It seems deeper, more fully, seeking peace and reconciliation between ourselves and God, enabling us to rest in the Father, however that looks like.
|
Do the means justify the ends?
I am surprised by how often this simple idea comes to bear. Do the means justify the ends? Does the result justify how we get to it? I suppose this concept is most easily broken up into its three main linguistic groups: the subject, verb and direct object.
The Ends
It is fascinating how those who would vehemently deny this ideology are tempted by it when the ends are so productive and positive. When the end enables solving world hunger, when it reduces violence by preventative means (phone tapping), or other such positives. Sometimes the ends are so attractive, that the means become irrelevant. In evaluating the means, should we take into account the ends? There is necessity in teleological thinking, particularly in terms of moral development, but for any goal minded individual. If the ends of decisions are not considered, then the means are completely unimportant. The ends are, ultimately, the goal. (Although the means are exceedingly important, they must be secondary otherwise no direction, progress or organized movement could be achieved. Even BASE communities, house churches, and the most organic organizations have a mission.) So, the question then is not “Do the means justify the ends?”, but “What sorts of means are acceptable for the ends that we have in mind?”
The Means
We most often think of means in terms of direct actions that conclude in results. I want to suggest the means as more intimately connected with the character of the individual or organization which is pursuing some sort of telos. The ends and the means are so tightly connected together that they cannot be taken apart to evaluate separately. The means dictate the sorts of ends that are possible to achieve. Peace cannot be achieved with a sword. Love cannot be attained by coercion. The sorts of means we engage directly defines the sorts of ends that result.
The Justification
This idea of the entwined nature of means and ends leads to a reinterpretation of justification. Justification is not solely focused on the result, but on the way to achieve that result. This is part of the ideas of being vs. becoming. The becoming is the end: who we are becoming is intensely important, but who we are now (our being) defines in part who we become. (I leave here only a mention of the supernatural, though at the moment I am unsure how God works in these ways.) So, if one wants to become a virtuous person, or if a community wants to engage in peace and reconciliation, or if a nation desires economic justice and international cooperation, how they are acting in the present defines how those teleological goals will or can come into being.