lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/18/84)
<>
David Brunson, in raising the question of Christianity and the Law, has
made a number of important and (unfortunately) valid criticisms of
Christianity as it is commonly preached and practiced. He points to Martin
Luther, and shows that the even most esteemed theologian can be guilty of
the most heinous sins against God and against God's creatures. He suggests
that "winning the world for Jesus" is used to justify all sorts of unethical
activity. I wish I could say that David is wrong, but I happen to have
been raised in Lynchburg, Virginia (home of the Moral Majority), and I
know better.
If my (yet limited) study of early Christianity has taught me anything,
it is that there is nothing new in "contemporary" society. Specifically,
David has brought up three issues that are closely related, and have been
the source of a great deal of debate and soul-searching throughout the
history of the church. The issues are the 1) the role of the Jewish
Scriptures (which came to be called the "Old Covenant/Testament" in the
2nd Century), which affects both 2) the ethical paradigm Christians are
to live by, and 3) the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
The common denominator in all three issues is Torah. The Scriptures of
God's people (the Jews) was Torah. As the law of God, the Torah defined
ethics. And the Torah was the evidence (and instrument) of God's covenant
relationship with his people (Jews) - in the study and keeping of the Torah
God's people found their life and their relationship with their Creator.
Christians often try to divide Torah - most Protestants distinguish moral,
civil and ceremonial regulation. No 1st Century Jew would accept such an
idea. Torah was totally unlike any Greek nomos (law) which merely gave
moral rules or ethical guidelines. Torah was the covenant of God with
his chosen people. (BTW, an excellent discussion of this whole subject is
Ed Sanders' "Paul and Palestinian Judaism", 1977, Fortress Press. Sanders
teaches at Oxford, and has played a leading role in recent dialogue
between Jewish and Christian leaders.)
I have already suggested my view that the essence of Christianity, among the
first followers of Jesus, was an awareness that God's kingdom was "at hand,"
and that now one's covenantal standing in God's community would be determined
solely by one's relationship with Christ. This concept is essentially at
logger-heads with Torah's claim to mediate God's covenant. While many
disciples of Jesus continued to live in Jewish society for at least another
century, their understanding of Torah as something tentative and incomplete
brought recurring suspicion from their Jewish neighbors.
For some reason (perhaps the authority of Jesus' own teachings) the early
church appropriated the Jewish Scriptures for itself. As writings "inspired"
by God, these Scriptures were understood to have pointed forward to Christ
and to the new covenant through his death and resurrection. This prophecy/
fulfillment paradigm replaced the covenant/Torah paradigm as the essence of
these writings.
The prophecy/fulfillment paradigm left its mark on the other two issues
raised by Brunson - ethics and Jewish/Christian relation. The tension
between Christianity and Judaism is pretty well known (on net.religion
at least :-). I think I will leave that subject alone for a while.
The ethical standards of the "old" covenant, the commandments of God,
pointed forward to the (morally stricter) standards of the "new"
covenant. Exactly what these standards are, though, was understood in
different ways. Matthew writes his gospel setting forth the teachings
of Jesus as the new law (and perhaps even the new Torah) for Christians.
Matthew's position is reflected in the Didache, Ignatius, and Hermas
(among others). In fact, the Matthean "Sermon on the Mount" early becomes
the basic starting point for Christian ethics.
Paul developed his ethical standards (which he referred to as the "will of
God") in terms of some general principles, whose application could be
discerned through an immediate relationship with the Holy Spirit. The
most common of these principles was the unity of the church, which, Paul
felt, occasionally necessitated some voluntary compromise of Christian
freedom (I doubt Paul would condone any compromise of Christian conviction).
Thus Paul's willingness to "become all things to all people, that I may
somehow save all. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that
I may have a share in it" (1 Cor. 9.22-23). I am sure Paul never intended
these words to condone deception or "duplicitous capriciousness" (and I
believe that David Brunson concurs here). Rather, the point of this passage
is Paul's response to God's love, which leads him to accept *all* people
where they are, and to treat *all* people with respect and integrity.
The Johannine community adopted a via media between the "Law of Jesus" ethic
of Matthew, and the "End/goal of Torah" ethic of Paul. In the Johannine
church, the teachings of the ("Old Testament") Scriptures as well as the
words of Jesus were interpreted and applied through the inspiration of the
"Paraclete" (the Spirit of God) who functioned in the teaching ministry of
the church, and particularly through the teaching of the church's founder
(known as the "Beloved Disciple" - traditionally identified as the Apostle
John).
These three approaches to Christian ethics appear at various times, and in
various combinations throughout the history of the church. All of them
share an understanding of the Jewish Scriptures as prophetic (and thus
an implicit rejection of Torah in the three-fold sense). In Protestantism,
Calvinistic theology has emphasized the continuity of Old/New Testament,
and has often been accused of legalism. Luther and his followers emphasized
the discontinuity, and a more immediate ethic is typical of Luther's own
writings. Anabaptists have tended to opt for the third paradigm, where
the proper interpretation and application of Scripture takes place in the
context of the worshipping community. Modern "evangelicalism" has its
interesting combination of fundamentalist legalists and charismatic
enthusiasts, and cultic personalities whose "Paraclete" enables them weekly
to expound the prophetic aspects of biblical ethic as fulfilled in the
platform of the Republican convention (perhaps an exaggeration, but not a
very large one:-).
Are any (or all) of these three approaches to Christian ethics "antinomian"
(in the sense of morally weak or deficient). Perhaps. However, in the
first three centuries (i.e. before it became the official religion of the
Roman Empire), Christianity seems to have had a reputation for its
ethical rigor. Monks and martyrs were known for their extreme standards.
Bishops were commonly trusted as mediators in complex legal negotiations,
and if a relative was kidnapped, the church often footed the ransom (even
for non-Christians). In a time of general decline in morality, the major
attraction of Christianity seemed to be its ethical standards. It was not
until the time of Augustine (late 4th Century), when the "official" church
was attracting mass conversions, that the problem of morally apathetic
Christians received widespread attention.
If contemporary Christianity is ethically deficient (and I have to admit that
Brunson's observations are largely correct), it certainly does point up a
"character defect." Is the "defect" theological or practical (an artificial
distinction if ever there was one). Some "Jesus and me" types suggest that
we throw church and tradition to the wind, and just get into a quiet corner
with "the Book." I have known a lot of these Christian iconoclasts; their
rejection of tradition and theology removes moorings and perspective; their
thoroughgoing individualism generally produces self-interest rather than
love of neighbor. On the other hand, a lot of church leaders haven't done
much better. Most theologians love to involve themselves in social issues
(important to be sure), but their basic framework of interpersonal relations
is often some combination of self actualization and sentimental mush. The
"defect" isn't in tradition or theology - the "defect" is in the shallow
complacency of too many Christian thinkers.
Even on the practical level, however, Brunson's observations hold.
Most of us know something about loving our neighbor, treating others like
we want to be treated, and being a "Good Samaritan." Unfortunately the
"defect" is in *our* character. We allow prejudice and selfishness to
dominate us, we try to hide our behavior (as if non-Christians won't
notice), we make excuses for blatant sin in other Christians, and we
think someone "disloyal" who calls attention to this behavior in public.
Dietrich Bonhoffer, a theologian who died in a Nazi prison camp, coined
a term for such Christianity - he called it "cheap grace" and said that
it was worth as much as it cost!
Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University