|
Granby posts...
A topic I've been exploring in my own thoughts is the relationship of Christianity and moral relativism. I would like to hear others people thoughts on the issues. I think that Christian morality is founded on relativism, however not in the common usage of the word relativism, but relative to Gods love and 'love your neighbor'. 'The law' has been abolished, and Christ has established a new law, based on love. The quandary I have run into is how to apply differences between societal and individual judgments. For example, I have a friend who is addicted to certain illicit drugs: now this friend would, as he has argued and I agree with, would have a much better life if he could simply buy, legally, the drugs which he now needs in order to function. Now, from a Christian perspective of love your neighbor, i see no way in which one could argue against his theory of legalizing drugs. This man is my neighbor, and he would be better off if drugs were legalized. But would society be better off - I think probably not. I run into moral quandaries like this all the time, where it seems as though 'Love your neighbor' conflicts with the idea of 'love your neighbors' (i.e. a more societal application of the principal. The commandment from God is clear though, it is to 'Neighbor' (individual specific), not 'Neighbors' (group specific.) Furthermore, I see this same dichotomy throughout the bible, God always seems mad at nations and various institutions (groups of people) : but seems to consistently deal with individuals much more from an individual Christian love perspective (even though that can sometimes be harsh). Is there a dichotomy, and if so how does one reconcile individual verses group judgments about moral issues? Granby posts... Just for the record this is a quasi-hypothetical example. I'm not looking for advice on how to help my friend. I'm just trying to explore a sticky ethical question which applies to many controversial issues (I tried to pick one that illustrated my point without starting numerous off topic posts). You are exactly right, that this is a two part commandment. In fact I believe the two commandments are inextricably linked together: essentially making them one commandment. Something like "keep your eye on the ball and swing the bat." Its impossible to effectively accomplish the mission at hand without doing both things. (Assuming a true Christian definition of love.) If they are in fact linked as I have described, that changes the ethics of the situation. Take for example euthanasia. Some defend it under love your neighbor, the standard reply is 'yes, but you must love God first, and god says do not kill.' If the two commandments are linked equally then standard Christian defense against euthanasia arguments is poor exegesis because it wrongly assumes commandment one supersedes and defines commandment 2. If commandment 2 is inextricably enjoined with commandment 1, then the first person can reply just as well 'that you cannot love god unless you love your neighbor'. I post... “I think that Christian morality is founded on relativism, however not in the common usage of the word relativism, but relative to Gods love and 'love your neighbor'. 'The law' has been abolished, and Christ has established a new law, based on love. The quandary I have run into is how to apply differences between societal and individual Judgments.” Do not forget, Granby, that Jesus also specifically said “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:16 ESV). Jesus also mentions elsewhere that he came not to abolish the laws of the prophets, but to fulfill them. And that not a single pen stroke shall disappear from the law before what is done is done (the End of Days at which Christians are Judged and pass into heaven). We cannot manipulate the teachings of Christianity by claiming that all we must now do is love God and love one another. God calls us to do many other things as well. In addition, the Christian lifestyle dictates a way of living in which we are governed by the law of God. Saint Paul writes on this of course, that we no longer need to worry about the laws of ritual purity (dietary laws, sacrificial rituals, etc.), but he still is very clear that the Old Covenant contains many laws that are and always shall be immutable. Among these are laws governing sexuality, idolatry, treatment of neighbors, and treatment of oneself, among others. In the case of this friend with a drug problem, you need to ask yourself, “Am I loving my neighbor by allowing him to continue a destructive lifestyle?” In such a situation, one must define love clearly. Is love allowing your neighbor to do as he wishes? Or is love counseling your neighbor, to encourage repentance and healing in a closer relationship with God? The loving thing to do would be to help him break the unhealthy addiction, and help him discover that true health is found in communion with Jesus Christ. The pain and suffering encountered on the way to this is merely a natural outcome. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this “the cost of discipleship”. “Take for example euthanasia. Some defend it under love your neighbor, the standard reply is 'yes, but you must love God first, and god says do not kill.' If the two commandments are linked equally then standard Christian defense against euthanasia arguments is poor exegesis because it wrongly assumes commandment one supersedes and defines commandment 2.” I am somewhat surprised to hear this being discussed on an Orthodox Christian forum (actually I’m mildly surprised to hear relativism being discussed at all with such a progressive tilt on biblical law). Regarding euthanasia, we need to ask ourselves whether or not killing a man—because he is suffering—is love towards our neighbor. Euthanasia itself is quite frankly a way of saying that one has lost trust in God to pull all people through tribulations and despair, always providing the deliverance he promises us in the Gospel. When we are suffering, the proper response is to continue to say always “I trust you, Lord.” And then with God’s help we endure our pain. Biblically it is simply inconceivable—it works against both of these commandments. Fear of pain (the reason we are dealing with the debate over euthanasia in the modern world) is a natural part of life, and when we are confronted with it we must put ourselves in God’s hands, and not cut short a life that would have lived, merely because it is suffering. I may be called crazy for this, but I regard suffering to be one of God’s greatest gifts. This may be something of a side note, but it is important to the subject of euthanasia. We are beings naturally inclined to serve ourselves; in a world without suffering, we would do this mindlessly with no consideration even for a god. And so we were made to suffer as a gift, a signal that would help us see God who offers us something better. When we suffer, we cannot throw our hands up in despair and opt to end our lives. As Job did, we must learn to accept our suffering as a part of God’s plan for us. In any event, the act of killing someone because they requested it, or because they appear to be suffering to the point where their life is no longer worth living is contradictory to both of Christ’s commandments—the love of God and the love of neighbors together. It is not an act of love to one’s neighbor to help them commit suicide, because it assists them in demonstrating a disregard for the omniscient and omnipotent will of God, who will ultimately deliver them to Himself, if they have faith in His son. In this it is indirectly breaking commandment 1 as well. We do not love by giving others what they want. Rather, we love others by helping them realize what they need. This was a forum discussion on Beliefnet, in the Traditional Christianity Discussion Forums. These posts are selections of my responses to 'Granby's' specific statements, which I hope you find interesting. |
