In this blog, “God Is Relative,” I am quarreling with the church, and with its historical self-understanding and development. But realize, please, that this is a lover’s quarrel. In spite of my anger and disappointment, I am not going to abandon the church; I’ve never considered that
My feelings about the church are ambivalent. It is one of the places I am most comfortable; it is one of the places I feel most uncomfortable. I feel at home in church. I am part of this family. I am part of this very dysfunctional family. I am staying, but I understand quite well why many others choose to leave, or having visited, choose not to return.
I intend two things in this blog: First, to speak to those who grew up in church, but left and have no intention of returning, those who grew up in church but miss it and wish it were different, and those who have stayed in the church but are uncomfortable about it. I am also writing for those who have no church background, except enough to bore or anger them, but who know that something is missing from their life, something neither science nor “stuff” can satisfy.
My second intention is to call on the church to reconsider what they believe and teach about God. The church routinely misrepresents God, thereby furnishing many with a good reason to abandon and/or ignore church and church people. This dysfunctional “family of God” needs family counseling, needs it badly. I am attempting to make some small contribution to get church folk to consider seeking such counsel. It is available.
____________
Someone recently told me that I am, in fact, writing more to folks who are an active part of the church, rather than to that large population that has no active relationship to the church and is not interested. If so, I am failing in what I set out to do. I am an active member of both groups, and am attempting to address both.
I am attempting, in this series of blogs, to present an alternative understanding of the Christian God, and of the changes this might bring about. I am writing nothing original. Many others, addressing different elements of this need, are speaking, writing, and leading toward a different future for Christian understanding and action.
_________________
I was surprised when, recently I realized that what I am attempting is frighteningly close to the same thing that Jesus was doing. An uneasy place to be. A place that possibly could be arrogant or naive. Near the beginning of the story of Jesus we are told that he “came saying: ‘repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom of God.’” Who am I, I asked myself, to be attempting the same thing? Nonetheless, I think it fits.
Please stay with me as I get a bit academic about words and ideas. I promise not to stay there long.
Let’s take that one word at a time, beginning with “repent,” a word that is commonly misunderstood. Shuv is the major word in the Hebrew Old Testament translated as, “repent,” This word has the very simple literal meaning, “turn.” This includes left turn, right turn, turn around, turn back, turn aside, or any other usage of the word. It refers to a change of direction, whether literal or figurative, physical or mental, intentional or emotional. That is all.
Metanoeo is the major word in the Greek New Testament translated as, “repent,” This word is derived from the Greek preposition, meta, and the noun, nous.
“Meta,” depending on its context, can be translated as: among, with, after, afterward, behind. “Nous” is the Greek word for the mind, reason, thought. It comes from the verb, ginosko. Note the “no” shared by the verb and the noun. Note also, in English, that “knowledge,” and “know,” share the same “no.”
When combined as meta-noeo (repent), and used in the New Testament, it takes from nous the idea of how we think, what we think, the way we understand reality. From meta, it takes on the common time-related sense of “after.”
To repent is to change the direction of our thought–shuv–from the way we previously have understood reality, from the previous major premise of our reasoning, and now, after thinking one way for perhaps most of our life, to adopt a new mind. In a major way, to have a “second thought,” an “afterthought.” To repent is to rethink reality, and adopt–and therefore live by--the new understanding.
Thus, when, on several occasions in the Old Testament, God is,said to repent, it is telling us that God had taken some action or had spoken some intention, but then turned, changed his mind, had second thoughts. As a result, he changed either his actions or his attitude. Both reflect change--of some sort–taking place within God. They indicate both that God is affected by human conduct and that God has affections, an emotional life.
This repentance on God’s part challenges the traditional ideas that God is incapable of, cannot, does not,change. More particularly, it challenges the idea that God is unaffected emotionally by anything. Stated more positively, it indicates that the biblical God is indeed a “living” God, an involved God, and a God who cares.
Paul Tillich believed that everyone believed in God, that whatever our “ultimate concern” is is our God. One fellow, in resonse to Tillich’s definition, said, “My ultimate concern is whether “The Ultimate” is concerned with me.” The divine repentance is one indication of God’s involvement and concern.
The traditional Christian understanding of God sees him as absolute, all-powerful, unchangeable, unaffected by anything, and all-knowing. (Although they would, and will, cry out in horror, the fact is that the common understanding of the Christian God makes it hard to distinguish God from a tyrant). This blog is an argument that this way of thinking about God needs to change.
We need to repent, to rethink, to reconsider the entire biblical story and its stories, and to see what God is and does.
“Repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom of God.” Belief is not a religious word. It is a word that shapes all aspects of human life. We live by what we believe to be true. We act on the basis of what we believe, what we are convinced of, what we are convicted of. We all put our faith in something. We all trust something, some things, principles, persons.
To repent means that on the basis of a new mind, a new understanding, we change the focus of our belief, our faith, our trust, and thus, the basis and direction of all our thought and action. Repentance and faith are two sides of one coin.
On one occasion when Alexander the Great was quite sick, his doctor–and good friend--brought a potion for him to drink. However, Alexander received a note from one of his advisors, saying that the doctor had poisoned his medicine. Acting contrary to conventional wisdom, Alexander--believing, trusting, having faith in his friend–unhesitatingly drank the medicine, thanked the doctor, and got well.
We never repent if we still believe the old way is the one to be trusted. We repent only if somehow we come to believe the old is wrong, and/or that another is the better way.
[My next post will continue this rephrased and expanded statement of what I am about in these writings. Thus far, I’ve spoken only of “repent and believe,” and must deal also with “the good news of the kingdom of God.]
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The End Does Justify the Means
Few days pass between the times I hear someone disparagingly say, “Yes, they believe the end justifies the means.” They don’t know what they are talking about. They have not thought about what they are saying.
The end does justify the means. It is always what justifies the mean, we just don’t realize it. We commonly misunderstand what our disturbance is really about. Were we to attain conceptual clarity, we would realize the problem lies in a disagreement about the appropriate ends.
If the end, if the goal, is to convict the accused in a court of law, any means is justified if it leads to conviction. If the end--goal, purpose--is to achieve a just society, we may use only those means that will lead to that end. Once again though we may use any means that will in truth produce a just society. Our real issue is always one of ends.
Adolf Hitler was justified in the death camps since his goal was to develop a pure Aryan race of people in Germany or Europe. Our problem with Hitler is our disagreement that this is an appropriate end. If Hitler’s actual goal was to restore stability, a lasting stability to the economic and social life of Germany, he used the wrong means. They only seemed, for a short time, to justify the means he used. It remains true that his chosen means could not achieve a civil society as its end.
The idea that the end justifies the means is often identified with pragmatism, simplistically understood as, “whatever works is right,” or “whatever works is the truth.” Again, I affirm the validity of the pragmatic understanding of life. The real issue at stake here is tied up in two concerns: how do we understand works, and, the question of time?
Are we talking about what seems to work in the immediate situation, or are thinking of what works in the long run? The difference is enormous. The American pragmatist philosophers, Peirce, James, and Dewey, were considering what works “in the long haul.” This is quite different from what seems to work in the instant.
Here we see the nature of pragmatism and the ends/means question converge. If for a student, the end is simply to make an “A” in the class, and if cheating works--accomplishes an “A”--then cheating is justified by the grade received. It was the “right” thing to do.
Few would concede that making an “A” in school is the end of human being and doing. If, on the other hand, the end is to become an educated, trained, and skilled person, cheating will not work. That means cannot accomplish that end. It is wrong. If the end is to become a person of character and integrity, productive and responsible in private, business, and civil life, cheating on a test won’t work. That means prevents us from attaining the desired end.
Means and ends always exist in relation to each other. As Hegel indicates, the means are aufgeheben (caught up and remain) in the end, thus some ends cannot be achieved by some means. Means enter into the ends they are instrumental in reaching. They continue to participate in the end itself.
If your goal is an angel food cake, you may use any list of ingredients and any method of preparation, if it produces a genuine angel food cake. But not just any means will fit your purpose. Two tablespoons of cayenne pepper, or baking at 150 degrees for twelve hours will never produce a satisfactory dessert. On the other hand, there are many variant recipes for angel food cake and many of them produce a delicious treat. Especially with strawberries drizzled over the top.
Because Christians are in the forefront of condemning those who act as if they believe that the end justifies the means, I add one more example to illustrate the fallacy of their condemnation. If the kingdom of God is the ultimate end of human life, indeed of human history, then anything may be done that leads to that result.
We are free to act, believe, or lead others in any fashion imaginable, if and only if, it leads to the rule of God–the Kingdom of God--in our world. On the other hand, no act, belief, or leadership, however trivial, is justified if it contributes nothing at all to making this world more of what God desires and intends.
Pragmatism is not the only view that understands what is here at issue. Situation ethics agrees completely, in fact, it includes pragmatism as one of its basic premises. Actually many ethical theories begin with a consideration of the Summum Bonum, the greatest good. They start with the question, “What is the end/goal/purpose of human life?
If ethics is to tell us what we must do if we are to be good, it must first define the nature of the supreme good. However it construes “good,” it then sets out a system on how we may attain that end. The ethical system that develops is valid only if it serves as a means to the formation of good people who perform good deeds and are capable of making judgments about the deeds and character of others.
As I said, situation ethics is a special instance of this kind of teleological approach to morality. People condemn situation ethics because they have come to see certain rules and principles as ends in themselves rather than as means to the Summum Bonum.
Situation ethics--like its kindred idea, relativism--is a term used quite loosely. Certainly many use it as an excuse to justify behavior that is highly questionable. But if we recognize that the term came into popular usage in the 1960s after the publication of Joseph Fletcher’s controversial, Situation Ethics, we are obligated to understand the idea as he first developed .
Few have taken the time to give the book a thoughtful reading. I admit that the style of the book is a major hindrance to understanding what Fletcher argues. Apparently in an effort to make it the best-selling book it was, Fletcher filled it with illustrations of its application in sexual morality. He seemed to justify a variety of sexual situations in a way that disturbs many readers who want to be fair with his thought.
The fact is that Fletcher’s generous use of example situations to illustrate his point accomplish the exact opposite. They obscure the ideas that are the heart of the book.
One of Fletcher’s dominant ideas is that we can’t pre-scribe what action is right until we are in an actual situation. Verbal examples, such as he mistakenly included in his book, are not actual life situations, no matter how completely they are described. If Fletcher were consistent with his guiding principles, his examples would have been excluded or, at least, greatly qualified. As it is, they confuse. But, of course, they do maintain interest and did help sell the book. Most of the controversy was occasioned by the misleading “illustrations.”
_______________
In the entire biblical narrative, we see God in action and hear God speaking, always, in relation to a specific situation, an actual occasion. What is right or wrong depends on God’s judgment in this particular situation.
The end desired by God never changes. God’s goal, purpose, end, is that his way–self-giving love--should rule, control his entire creation, producing in the end a universal community of peace and joy. Again, if we carefully examine all God does and says in the scriptural story, we find that he uses any means that will, in the long haul work–and some of these make us wonder about him–to accomplish his intention.
Few days pass between the times I hear someone disparagingly say, “Yes, they believe the end justifies the means.” They don’t know what they are talking about. They have not thought about what they are saying.
The end does justify the means. It is always what justifies the mean, we just don’t realize it. We commonly misunderstand what our disturbance is really about. Were we to attain conceptual clarity, we would realize the problem lies in a disagreement about the appropriate ends.
If the end, if the goal, is to convict the accused in a court of law, any means is justified if it leads to conviction. If the end--goal, purpose--is to achieve a just society, we may use only those means that will lead to that end. Once again though we may use any means that will in truth produce a just society. Our real issue is always one of ends.
Adolf Hitler was justified in the death camps since his goal was to develop a pure Aryan race of people in Germany or Europe. Our problem with Hitler is our disagreement that this is an appropriate end. If Hitler’s actual goal was to restore stability, a lasting stability to the economic and social life of Germany, he used the wrong means. They only seemed, for a short time, to justify the means he used. It remains true that his chosen means could not achieve a civil society as its end.
The idea that the end justifies the means is often identified with pragmatism, simplistically understood as, “whatever works is right,” or “whatever works is the truth.” Again, I affirm the validity of the pragmatic understanding of life. The real issue at stake here is tied up in two concerns: how do we understand works, and, the question of time?
Are we talking about what seems to work in the immediate situation, or are thinking of what works in the long run? The difference is enormous. The American pragmatist philosophers, Peirce, James, and Dewey, were considering what works “in the long haul.” This is quite different from what seems to work in the instant.
Here we see the nature of pragmatism and the ends/means question converge. If for a student, the end is simply to make an “A” in the class, and if cheating works--accomplishes an “A”--then cheating is justified by the grade received. It was the “right” thing to do.
Few would concede that making an “A” in school is the end of human being and doing. If, on the other hand, the end is to become an educated, trained, and skilled person, cheating will not work. That means cannot accomplish that end. It is wrong. If the end is to become a person of character and integrity, productive and responsible in private, business, and civil life, cheating on a test won’t work. That means prevents us from attaining the desired end.
Means and ends always exist in relation to each other. As Hegel indicates, the means are aufgeheben (caught up and remain) in the end, thus some ends cannot be achieved by some means. Means enter into the ends they are instrumental in reaching. They continue to participate in the end itself.
If your goal is an angel food cake, you may use any list of ingredients and any method of preparation, if it produces a genuine angel food cake. But not just any means will fit your purpose. Two tablespoons of cayenne pepper, or baking at 150 degrees for twelve hours will never produce a satisfactory dessert. On the other hand, there are many variant recipes for angel food cake and many of them produce a delicious treat. Especially with strawberries drizzled over the top.
Because Christians are in the forefront of condemning those who act as if they believe that the end justifies the means, I add one more example to illustrate the fallacy of their condemnation. If the kingdom of God is the ultimate end of human life, indeed of human history, then anything may be done that leads to that result.
We are free to act, believe, or lead others in any fashion imaginable, if and only if, it leads to the rule of God–the Kingdom of God--in our world. On the other hand, no act, belief, or leadership, however trivial, is justified if it contributes nothing at all to making this world more of what God desires and intends.
Pragmatism is not the only view that understands what is here at issue. Situation ethics agrees completely, in fact, it includes pragmatism as one of its basic premises. Actually many ethical theories begin with a consideration of the Summum Bonum, the greatest good. They start with the question, “What is the end/goal/purpose of human life?
If ethics is to tell us what we must do if we are to be good, it must first define the nature of the supreme good. However it construes “good,” it then sets out a system on how we may attain that end. The ethical system that develops is valid only if it serves as a means to the formation of good people who perform good deeds and are capable of making judgments about the deeds and character of others.
As I said, situation ethics is a special instance of this kind of teleological approach to morality. People condemn situation ethics because they have come to see certain rules and principles as ends in themselves rather than as means to the Summum Bonum.
Situation ethics--like its kindred idea, relativism--is a term used quite loosely. Certainly many use it as an excuse to justify behavior that is highly questionable. But if we recognize that the term came into popular usage in the 1960s after the publication of Joseph Fletcher’s controversial, Situation Ethics, we are obligated to understand the idea as he first developed .
Few have taken the time to give the book a thoughtful reading. I admit that the style of the book is a major hindrance to understanding what Fletcher argues. Apparently in an effort to make it the best-selling book it was, Fletcher filled it with illustrations of its application in sexual morality. He seemed to justify a variety of sexual situations in a way that disturbs many readers who want to be fair with his thought.
The fact is that Fletcher’s generous use of example situations to illustrate his point accomplish the exact opposite. They obscure the ideas that are the heart of the book.
One of Fletcher’s dominant ideas is that we can’t pre-scribe what action is right until we are in an actual situation. Verbal examples, such as he mistakenly included in his book, are not actual life situations, no matter how completely they are described. If Fletcher were consistent with his guiding principles, his examples would have been excluded or, at least, greatly qualified. As it is, they confuse. But, of course, they do maintain interest and did help sell the book. Most of the controversy was occasioned by the misleading “illustrations.”
_______________
In the entire biblical narrative, we see God in action and hear God speaking, always, in relation to a specific situation, an actual occasion. What is right or wrong depends on God’s judgment in this particular situation.
The end desired by God never changes. God’s goal, purpose, end, is that his way–self-giving love--should rule, control his entire creation, producing in the end a universal community of peace and joy. Again, if we carefully examine all God does and says in the scriptural story, we find that he uses any means that will, in the long haul work–and some of these make us wonder about him–to accomplish his intention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
