A Theology of Ethics, Truth, & Contemporary Applications
In a continuation of an exchange concerning Slavery in the Bible, some atheist critiques are addressed concerning ethics, the Bible, and modern society.
_______________
[EDITOR'S NOTE: At my personal blog, the long way home, I have been working on a series of posts responding to some old atheist friends of mine on the topic of slavery, ethics, and the Bible. So far: what the Bible says, why I'm doing the series, Philosophy & Ethics, and now, Theology & Ethics. If you want, read the other posts and feel free to get in on the lively discussion. I'm posting this article on this site, because I believe it addresses very real societal and cultural ideas and assumptions that affect our everyday lives and do not just belong to the areas of academia or theology. Let me know if you disagree.]
Objective Truth & Morality
The ideas mentioned in the previous post of transcendent ethical principles (and not simple behavioral norms) and a hierarchy of those principles (and not simplistic applications) within ethics are nothing new to Philosophy. Those enough could show the overly simplistic nature of the usual argument concerning general Christian ethics made when talking about slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not have simplistic do/don’t do ethics. It has consistent transcendent principles that are then wisely and faithfully applied in ways that look differently throughout history. This is the way that ethics works, even on a secular level. But, these are not uniquely Christian. There are ways that Christianity and the Bible uniquely further inform our ethics.
The first thing, and the most important thing I want everyone to get from this post is that neither the Bible nor historic Christianity believes in Objective Morality or Objective Truth. This is an idea of modernism. Modernism redefined “Truth” to mean anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with created reality. An unintended consequence of this mindset was that the only vehicles for Truth, then, became history and science. This meant that anything that called itself “true” had to be speaking in either historical or scientific terms — nothing else. Christians were influenced by these ideas and then began defending the Bible on the basis of these assumptions (best example: Creation “science”). This even seeped into many Christian articulations of Morality (“there is only one set of ‘good things’ people everywhere, at all times, should do”). But this is not the Biblical view of Truth nor Morality. The Biblical view is not that of objective Morality/Truth, but of an objective standard for Morality/Truth. This is such an important distinction. The Bible relocates Truth and Morality as anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with Ultimate Reality — the nature and character of God. This exists outside of created reality (and therefore outside the realms of history and science). In that case art, poetry, stories, myths, and even children stories can now fully be relied upon for truth and moral principles even if they have little or no basis in history, science, or universal applications of the ethical principles. There is an objective standard for Morality and Truth that is now subjectively applied by using wisdom, discernment, discourse, debate, intellectual thought, and engagement — not naive cut and paste applications of the Bible to life.
“An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?” by Keith Miller
In the first in a series of posts going through the book “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” (Keith Miller, ed.), we look at the Scientific and Theological justifications for the very idea of an “Evolving Creation”.
_______________
As the title of this essay suggests, it sets the tone for the rest of the book by laying out what exactly the authors mean by an “evolving creation”. Miller begins by defining terms. “Evolution,” as he uses it, “refers to the descent with modification of all living things from a common ancestor. Miller talks of “Creation” as a noun meaning anything “to which God has given being” and as a verb meaning God’s past and present action of bringing things into existence and sustaining them there (closely related to the idea of Providence). In light of these seemingly innocuous, uncontroversial definitions, can we really say that an idea of an “Evolving Creation” is inherently antithetical and contradictory? Miller, nor I, believe this is the case.
I’m Coming Out (Intro to an Evolving Creation)
Can one more voice crying out from the evangelical wilderness make a difference amidst the rising and seemingly never-ending din concerning Science “versus” Faith? I guess we’re about to find out.
_______________
You ever start reading a book and can immediately tell that it is going to be a pivotal book in your life? It hasn’t happened often, but the few times it has, it has indeed proven to be a life-altering experience. I’m feeling that right now.
Almost exactly a year ago, I met my now dear friend Chris Martin (not the guy from Coldplay). We were sitting there at a party (where he first met his now fiancee), and he began telling me about his experiences at L’Abri, a Christian retreat/study center in Switzerland started by Francis Schaeffer. In that conversation Chris told me about a book he had read from during his study. It was a large, poorly-graphically-designed, 525-page collection of essays called Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It piqued my interest. I immediately purchased the book and am only now getting around to reading it. This is a book I know will affect me for the rest of my life. And that brings me to my secret. It’s something about myself that I have kept hidden from the vast majority of Christians I’ve known. I’ve wondered if/when/how to reveal this to the world. And I think now is the time.
I, Paul Burkhart, am totally on board with Darwinian Evolution.
