It is often pointed out by the anti-theist elite and their devoted followers that the moral values that Christian people advocate aren’t very moral at all. Since the Bible is highly rated within Christian circles it is obviously placed at the centre of this debate and not seldom is it criticized for being too old and outdated. There is much that can be said about these critics; from what illusory moral high ground they’re making these claims and so on, but let’s pause for a second and consider if some of their critique doesn’t carry any weight here.
It doesn’t take years of theological training to figure out that the Bible is a fairly old collection of texts and that the various contexts in which these texts were written differs significantly from that of our own. Things were different back then, I think that we can all agree on that, but sometimes I get the feeling that we ignore some of the similarities. For some reason we tend to buy into the modern myth that ‘Western’ history can be described as a story of constant progress, something that results in a worldview that describe the ‘Western’ world as morally superior to both the past and other parts of the contemporary world. This is why, for example, we often tend to talk about other cultures as ‘medieval’ or ‘ancient’ when we want to criticize them for being morally corrupted.
For some people, thoughts like these leads them into a kind of reactionary, hard line postmodern deconstructionism where basically all objective moral judgments are being understood as oppressive to the ‘other.’ Although I don’t want to take that path I still think that it’s important that we reflect on what these people are saying by asking ourselves if our way of viewing the world take the ‘other’ into consideration at all? Unfortunately this seems to me to be the place where the Christian church all to often fail, hence this is where I would claim that the anti-theists have a point when they criticize Christians for having an outdated morality. The reason for them critiquing the church is usually that they themselves make the same mistake as many Christians and argue from the perspective of constant progress, moral and otherwise, so the fact that I consider their critique should not be understood as if I agree with their full conclusion. What I want to get to is rather that we as Christians need to understand what the core of our own faith is, namely the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In my last post I wrote a few words on the uniqueness of Christianity and those thoughts are highly relevant here: ‘The cross is not just a symbol for the love of God and the forgiveness of sins; it is also, and foremost, a symbol of how Christ defeated the powers of this world.’ Christ’s life, death and resurrection is a critique of this world and how it functions. This critique is old, as pope Dawkins and his cardinals rightly points out, but it’s not outdated. If we as Christians want to remain relevant in our contemporary world, and if we want to stay true to the one we confess to be our Lord, then I would claim that it’s paramount that we take Christ’s critique seriously. That is not to say that we should simply aim it at others while feeling good about ourselves, rather we should let it transform our own way of life so that we ourselves ‘become’ the critique.
Nice post. My problem with Postmodernism (and Post-structuralism) is that they present some valid criticisms here and there, but they never present any positive positions or arguments. (They are happy to scrap moral systems, but never explain what we should “replace” them with.)
Thanks, and I agree with you. I also think that you can add to your list the fact that simply stating moral relativism is to take a stand, hence the position is basically self-contradictory. But as a wrote, I think that the postmodern critique should be taken seriously and I believe that it functions as a great tool when thinking theologically.
I totally agree with you. I think postmodernism provides valid critiques of things we usually don’t think about (like colonialism and its effect on the “3rd world”). I hope to read more of your stuff. I enjoy different points of view regarding matters of theology.
I’ll try to keep it up.
I think the definition of “progress” is debatable.
There is a difference between open mindedness and liberality so open that it allows licentiousness, and damage to all legitimate norms.
Society ascends, then descends in cycles.
The reason for ascent is high moral grounds, diligence, and productivity. This is progress.
The reason for descent is low morals, sloth, and apathy. This is not freedom, but failure.
The bible lays down the criteria for the high moral ground, with no acceptance of the descent from the moral ground.
If we would follow the high moral ground, with love, we would not see the decay we do now in society, and in history itself.
My definition of progress? If so, I’m not debating that a society cannot progress by high moral standards but rather the Modernist view that everything leads to a higher state by necessity as history progress. There is quite a significant difference between the two.
I appreciate your thoughts and will be following your posts. Right now, I’m moving onto the scariest theological ground I have ever approached–my own heart.
I’ll keep you in my prayers as you adventure into that undiscovered terrain. I pray that when you reach the epicenter you will find our Risen Savior there, waiting for you (He has been there all along).
Absolutely true.
I agree with that entire sentiment of that comment. Beautiful!
Sure do use a lot of words even when you come out unattached to reality.
Feel free to expand that thought.
Normally when I read a post like this I try to say something thoughtful, but I’ve got to admit, reading the words “Pope Dawkins and his cardinals” might have been one of my favorite lines I’ve read in a while. I’m surprised no one else (above) has enjoyed this statire heh.
Hey J.P., I enjoyed your thoughts and appreciate the fact that you are able to work these thoughts out with us publicly. As to the definition of progress, and this goes for morality as well, I think it is absolutely necessary in the discussion to talk about what grounds we begin with. For Christians who take the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the narrative lens through which we judge everything else, progress is always a dangerous word. Anything that we might think is progress, can only be judged as such if it leads us as individuals and societies closer to being the kind of people that are able to live our lives out of that gospel as a witness that the gospel is true.
Part of the problem with looking back at history and judging Christian morality is that we tend to make two important mistakes.
1) We forget that it is relatively difficult, apart from a very discipled study of history, to know whether the actions of communities and individuals were done because of their misunderstandings of the gospel or because of their failure to take the gospel seriously and deny the power of the wider political order to determine what is right and good. In the sense of John Howard Yoder, all of Christendom is tainted with the sin of wedding the church with Constantine. What can we do? Nothing. Repent. If we are looking to relate morality and progress to history, our only stance can be repentance and earnestly seeking to learn from where the church has done well at living out the gospel, or failed at it. That is all.
2) Because we assume that everyone who considers themselves under the name “Christian” has sought to be discipled by the gospel, we want to judge them or let other judge us by their actions. We are not the moral gatekeepers of history. We can learn from them. As far as letting others judge us by their actions, again, repentance. But, as individuals, we repent, not because others call us Christians and thus, align us with immoral history…but because repentance is part and parcel of the effort it takes to be the kind of person that can make Christian moral judgments.
One view about history and progress I think brings a bit more clarity is that of Stanley Hauerwas. Perhaps this video can add to your discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFfGfQprjE
Great post! Thanks for following my blog. Your’s looks very interesting, as well. Returning the favor. God bless!
Very nice post and excellent point about becoming Christ’s critique! And I have to admit I’m glad to see the dialogue you’ve elicited with your blog. Not very often do you see (or at least have I seen) people presenting opposing arguments. I may not agree with them but am always glad to hear what someone else has to say, and having an open dialogue is how you begin planting seeds of Truth. We reap what we sow, and you are sowing an abundant harvest, J.P.!
Interesting thoughts.
Not too long ago I preached a sermon from 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and how Paul was telling the church then that their faith was a faith based on “old news” – the Old Testament (Luke 24:44-47).
So many people in “Christianity” are looking for something new, something hip, something “evolved” but what they don’t realize is that the people could have said the exact same thing to Paul when he presented a Savior based upon the Old Scriptures. It didn’t stop Paul from following Jesus and I don’t see as to why the gospel being “old news” today should keep anyone from believing the “good news” about Jesus any more than it did some 2,000 years ago.
When it comes to the gospel, if it’s new it ain’t true and if it’s true it ain’t new.
I agree that we tend to have the arrogance of modern superiority. That is to say, every generation believes they are more moral, as well as wiser than generations before. I am not, however, certain that presumption is wrong. Here’s why:
It is about evolution, particularly, social evolution. We evolve in every way, not just physically. As we gain knowledge about the way the world works, we can live more at peace with it and with others. I believe that the wickedness of burning witches at the stake was immoral, but the immorality was made possible, even necessary, by our ignorance of certain important facts about the world that we now have. That means that with less superstition guiding our actions, we can act based on knowledge and reality. We no longer burn witches at the stake. In that, we are more moral than previous generations.
I believe that most of the evils of society stem from ignorance. With each successive generation, ignorance is pushed back a little bit more, and we move closer to a common morality.
I would ask you to thoughtfully consider what it is you mean by a Christ centered morality. Jesus was as time and place bound as anyone else of his generation. Even if he was more socially evolved than his peers, he is two thousand years behind us. He would say that a person with epilepsy was possessed by a demon. That is a harsh judgement, even for someone who means well. He knew nothing about the causes and nature of sickness. His morality, when it came to the sick, was not better than ours.
The only way we could go backwards to a Christ centered morality is to go back in time and social devolve to the level of the man, Jesus. That would be a mistake, even if such a thing were possible. I would say that our morality should not be centered around the person of Jesus or his teachings. Rather, it should be centered around our ever expanding knowledge and best intentions for humanity. Human centric morality is what advances the species.
Hello Freestyle, thank you for subscribing to my blog. I’d just like to start with that note of appreciation.
I find your theory of an uncensored blog quite intriguing, and oddly similar to my blog’s own style. Mine is quite new and due to scheduling I’m limited to a day to write a single post which in actuality translates into 4 hours max.
Alright, now my comment on your post;
I want to address specifically the second to last paragraph where you give credence to anti-theist’s critique of Christian morality.
First I’d like to say you are committing the same straw man fallacy found in the atheist perspective that Christians inherently get their morals from the bible. These are two poorly misguided perceptions of the opposing view. Founded purely on fanatics and what we commonly refer to as stereotypes.
In my opinion, everyone who tries to tackle this problem go about it incorrectly. No fault of their own, I’m sure but it is not a simple matter of group A and group B.
Subdividing our species into anything further than human is the original grounds for sectarianism. We can not allow ourselves to breed this delusion that we are not all alike. We are all people and although individual, we belong to a collective power that is beyond our comprehension.
We find ourselves controlled like robots to obey rules and regulations. Our youth is merely an assimilation into our society. Your society. From your mom and dad to the very kids you share a classroom with, you are being fed constant do’s and dont’s.
The morality of a person does not exist in any definite way. It is merely everyone’s interpretation of the information taken in as a child. We learn our morals from our environments. If you aren’t exposed to it you won’t learn about it and thus your chances of believing in it are statistically improbable.
Whether you believe or anyone believes that Christian’s get morals from their bibles or not, they get their morals from the society they live in, from the social groups they exist in. Just because they are Christian and have a higher likely hood of believing in the bible as the inherent word of God, doesn’t excuse them from being human.
Thus just as susceptible to conscious and unconscious influences as every other human on this planet. You must look past the prescribed reality of superiority and see everyone as yourself. We all cry, we all hurt, and we can all feel intense emotions that can make us behave irrationally. Religious fanatics just tend to believe in things so against societal norms of acceptance and tolerance that atheist’s make the straw man assumption that all believers are the same.
Be careful of assumption,
-TMF
I’m not assuming anything like it. ‘Some’ people, not necessarily all atheists, tend towards this type of postmodern deconstructionism.
Not all those outside of christianity choose to live a morally relative life.
Morality, if it is to have a governing influence in our lives, must be universally applicable. If morality is not universal, then it becomes one’s opinions on how to live life.
For example, to say that theft is moral is self-contradictory, for no one wants the things they have ‘rightfully’ stolen, stolen from them. The same goes for falsehood, murder, etc.
Even tricky things such as war, and taxes disappear if all were to live morally non-contradictory lives. If it is wrong for a man to kill you, then it is wrong for another man to send others out to kill in name of country, god, etc. Taxes are wrong based on the contradiction of theft.
It isn’t that difficult to philosophically draw the line between good and bad. Gods, Governments, and Gifted speakers aren’t necessary to know and distinguish between right and wrong.
I’m not claiming that ‘all those outside of christianity choose to live a morally relative life’. What I write here is not a moral judgments on any individuals, rather it’s a theological argument about the significance of the Christ-event.
Keep up the good work. Own the ressurection. Very nice.
Thanks.
Thank you for the interesting perspective..