Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A podcast focusing on issues related to nonviolence, and a member of the Kingdom Outpost.
This episode is a doozy, and I recommend that you play it slowly, and perhaps follow the link to the written version after you listen to it. This is a repeat of an episode from season 9. In that episode, I propose a positive moral ethic, which I think Christianity gives us in the death and resurrection of Jesus and how it should be a guide for us towards living the ideal without compromise. The last episode, we talked about the importance of finding our purpose outside of ourselves. This episode continues with that idea by zooming in to focus on what that purpose is, and that purpose is other and community.
Derek:So a lot of this time in this episode is going to explore the the concept of purpose and how we are able to to find that. But another thing we're gonna explore in this episode is how how that purpose is not only obtained, but how it's preserved. When we live in a world that is fallen, that that where there's so much evil, when we live in a world where there's death, how can purpose really be preserved in such a world? And that's something that we're gonna talk about in this system that I propose. As a Christian, one of the the main aspects of this episode that I would that I would point out is gonna be the importance of the resurrection, to this this moral theory to to, the way that we live out our lives and find purpose and the way that that purpose is is preserved.
Derek:So there's so much that I could pull out of this episode, but this aspect in particular, I think, is is gonna be important, and I don't want you to miss it. Especially because it it, not only deals with the resurrection that I think is is vital to, everybody being aware of, but also because it it plays into so much of what I've talked about in consequentialism and so many of the examples of people like positive examples like, Bonhoeffer, who chooses the good even when it costs him a lot and even when it's not clear that it's gonna work. Or talking about, James Olsen, you know, in his book Fair Play, and how he's willing to compromise so much, and justify that morally somehow. And and Augustine that we're gonna get to when when he talks about not, you know, not ever lying no matter what. When we talk about, well, would you lie to a murderer at your door with Kant?
Derek:There's there's so much that we get into when we talk about should you live out the ideal even if it's not gonna work and even if it, doesn't seem loving? Like, can you really be true to the means and be a loving person? Like, how could you always be moral in that sense if moral doesn't always appear loving? How can that that, morality be preserved? And so I'm gonna argue in this episode that that the resurrection is really something that that secures our ability to do that as Christians.
Derek:To say, you know what? I'm not gonna compromise on the means. I'm going to create that ideal world, that the ideal work world that Kant envisioned, but it's actually a better ideal than than Kant's ideal. Because it's not just about the social contract. It's about, the kingdom of God.
Derek:And, so the resurrection secures that for us. It allows us to live out the ideal world regardless of of the ends that come about. You know, go back to Olsen's Fair Play book that we we talked about, and and this idea of consequentialism. Right? He he thought that he could sacrifice morality, seemingly clear moral ethics, like, don't kidnap or hire prostitutes and things like that.
Derek:You know, he's like, well, I mean, Americans' lives are at stake, and isn't saving more lives, good? And and sometimes economic interests, you know, it's not even just saving lives, but, saving people economically. Like, isn't that worth it to to preserve their way of life and their lifestyle, their standard of living, their their physical lives? And what Olsen was focused on there is he was focusing on what I'm gonna call here I don't know. There might be some some technical categories for it, but I'm gonna call it the ontological, value or the ontological existence of Americans.
Derek:He wanted to preserve their physical lives. And to him, that preservation of physical lives meant was the ultimate and meant that he could sacrifice all sorts of metaphysical or how however you wanna categorize them, metaphysical values, moral values to that because ontological persistence in existence is what mattered. Like, that's the ultimate, and so you could sacrifice everything else to that. If you don't do x evil, then y ontological evil will happen. People are gonna die.
Derek:Now I think we can all empathize, sympathize with Olsen here. And a lot of people would probably be like, well, yeah. Olsen's right, isn't he? And and it does seem right to a certain extent. Like, we we should want to save the most lives.
Derek:Of course, that leads into a whole lot of really dark areas. You can go back to my season on consequentialism. You know, the Mash Baby is my favorite example where you're like, well, then all of a sudden, it's really easy to justify doing really terrible things to people, and and calling that good just because it saves more lives. And so there there are definitely problems with that. But a lot of people can't envision the alternative.
Derek:They're like, well, what? Then you're not gonna save lives? Like, you're not gonna tell a little white lie in order to maybe save save people's lives? And so they would view that as in the book of James where he talks about what? You're gonna, there's somebody in need if you just say, oh, okay.
Derek:You you have all these, needs. You're starving. I'll pray for you. Alright? God be with you.
Derek:Amen. Alright. See you later tomorrow, maybe if you haven't starved to death by then. And you don't do anything physical for them. You don't do anything tangible or ontological, whatever you wanna call it.
Derek:And that's empty religion, isn't it? If you're not really helping people. But that's that's not at all what I'm talking about here when I talk about, doing the ideal. And if you listen to our episode on the ideal, 2 or 3 episodes back, hopefully, that's tucked away in the back of your mind. But it's more like what I'm saying is, you know, I'm not ever gonna blow your brains out and call that love or peace.
Derek:And if you've listened to enough of my episodes, you know that at the very end of the episode, for most of them, I say something to the extent of, you know, that's all for now, so peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. That's kinda like tongue in cheek. It's it's a a cheeky statement, and, there are a lot of people who believe in just war and believe in killing that I I really do respect and think are very godly and godlier than than I am. But there is a point that I'm trying to make with that too.
Derek:It's that okay. That guy over there who, who believes in just war, he says, peace, brother. You know, peace be with you. But he's supporting maybe a war in Afghanistan, or, he's supporting, drone strikes that are killing children, or, he's imperialism of some sorts, because that's what the United States does. He's supporting that to a certain extent.
Derek:So when he says peace, yet he's willing to kill, is that really peace? Or isn't that just, propaganda? Just disguising, this idea of peace, saying that killing is peace. And that that just doesn't jive. And so that's what what I'm trying to say here.
Derek:You've got people like Olson and and others consequentialists who are disguising all of these words and saying, well, we have to do good for people ontologically, don't we? We have to help them physically. If you don't, then, then it it must not be good. Ideals aren't good if they're not actually gonna help. And that's where I think the resurrection comes in.
Derek:Now hopefully, you listen to this whole episode for the the full explanation. But, essentially, you have someone like Bonhoeffer, who who believes that not only is he an ontological being, somebody who exists in physical reality, but he's also a metaphysical being that which is what I'm gonna call it. This metaphysical being, this spirit. And if somebody kills his body because of the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, Bonhoeffer will metaphysically continue, continue in his existence. And in in fact, in in his metaphysical existence, like, he'll end up becoming glorified and becoming, a part of of, connected to God through the spirit.
Derek:Like, that's a beautiful thing. So it allows Bonhoeffer to say, I'm not gonna sacrifice, other people. I'm not going to sacrifice, on on any ideal because I don't have to. Right? This isn't the end of it all.
Derek:And I know that that God will preserve and God will make right everything. So I can do what's right regardless of what happens to me ontologically. Somebody hangs me by the neck till I die. That's uncomfortable. But I can do that because, because I know what the ideal living out the ideal gets me and what the resurrection gets me.
Derek:Of course, you know, there can be a flip side to this. There can be the, the accusation leveled at a lot of conservative Christians nowadays where, because they believe in some eternal heaven and continued existence, then maybe they don't take care of the Earth right now, and they don't care if the Earth is supposedly getting destroyed because Jesus is coming back and, it doesn't matter anyway. Now, of course, you can get that type of thing. But that's why in here, this is a a 2 pronged argument. The resurrection and continued existence metaphysically, is is gonna be the second part of the argument.
Derek:But the first, part is purpose and meaning. Like, what what does God require of us? What what is it to be truly human? And if you put both of them together, you're gonna avoid the pitfalls that a lot of people often think when you get, these ethereal minded Christians who think only of the future. So, again, this episode is gonna be a doozy, but it's gonna be really vital for understanding this this section in my argument for the importance of truth.
Derek:So I hope you enjoy. Welcome back to the Fourth Way Podcast. Before I get into this episode proper, I want to just make you aware of a couple of things. First of all, this episode is going to be a doozy in, in regard to the content that's in it. It might be pretty difficult to listen through, because it's a little bit deeper.
Derek:So I will add a link for your reference. It might be easier for you to read this. There are portions in the written, the written part that are actually additions. So I'm I'm cutting some things out for this, this audio episode, but it might be easier for you to kind of be able to take the time to read through this than it is to listen to. But to make digesting this a little bit easier besides having a a written format for you, I'm also going to create like I do with with most episodes, in a season, I'm gonna create a short 3 minute or less TikTok video, and then put it on YouTube as well, which explains the very basics of what I'm trying to get at here.
Derek:And, you can listen to that and see if it's something that interests you, or maybe just listening to that will kind of give you a scaffold, give you some background knowledge to know where I'm going and make this a little bit easier to digest. Second, I want you to be aware that this episode is a prototype of sorts. I would not stand behind the things that I'm saying here and and die for them, because, these are kind of first thoughts that that I'm having. Well, really, I guess that's not fair that they're they're first thoughts, because it's really a consolidation of a lot of thoughts that I've been having for years years years about a variety of different difficulties that Christianity faces in in explaining, different things. So it it's a synthesis.
Derek:It finally came together with a conversation that I just had. Nevertheless, it's my first time thinking through it, and I haven't had people critique it and look at it yet. So, yeah. I I'm not putting this forward as gospel truth, but I do think it makes a lot of sense. I think it's good, and it it, it's important.
Derek:So hopefully, people will be able to work with that and push back against it. So with those things in mind, let's, let's set this episode up. The last episode was a, dialogue with doctor Alexander Christianopoulos, author of Christian Anarchism. While there were a number of points in that discussion that we could have pursued further, there's one big idea that stuck out in my head from that episode. The topic is one that I wanted to pursue because I think doctor Christianopoulos identified something which has been very unnerving to me, a Christian, in that many Christian anarchists seem to be Christians in a very loose sense.
Derek:It's as if throwing off the confines of the state requires a throwing off of all politics, and those politics include the reign of God. And that in throwing off the state and dogmatism, one also has to throw off orthodoxy. Particularly, doctor Christianopoulos identified this idea that for many Christian anarchists, the resurrection of Jesus seems to be a topic of little concern. In fact, there are some who would consider themselves Christian anarchists who don't believe in the resurrection. Now that strikes me as very odd because the Bible is extremely clear about the centrality of Jesus' resurrection and reign, and those things, especially the resurrection, is, integral to our faith.
Derek:If Jesus isn't raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain. Now I mentioned this in the previous episode, and I expressed how I wanted to dig into this a bit more. Well, that's the advantage of recording a year out. I had a few months to think through and, all this, and I can provide a follow-up episode for you immediately. For me, it's been several months.
Derek:So this episode represents a few months worth of thinking through my conversation with doctor Cristianopoulos. Hopefully, you find this conversation worthwhile. During the interview with doctor Cristianopoulos, I asked him how such a lack of emphasis on the resurrection didn't undermine the Christian anarchist position. If Christian anarchism is about doing what's right regardless of what the outcome may be, you know, defending the poor, fighting for justice, promoting abolition of slavery, denouncing war, all in the face of the nearly omnipotent state and and the violent state, then it seems like tossing the resurrection to the side would undermine such non consequentialist morality. If there is no resurrection, why do we denounce war?
Derek:Do non resurrection adhering anarchists denounce war simply because, as Erica Chenoweth argues in her work, Why Civil Resistance Works, nonviolence tends to work better. But what does that make anarchism then if we do things because it tends to work? A moral democracy? A position which chooses actions based on pragmatic tendencies? Doesn't that make moral outrage simply a frustration at others not being smart enough or analytical enough to pick the choice which tends to work best?
Derek:What about those instances where killing and war would actually save more lives or do more good? Without resurrection, we're left not with absolutes in the concrete, but with tendencies and generalizations. However, with the promise of resurrection, good always prevails in the end, even while choosing the good in the face of seeming defeat, because the resurrection promises the preservation of our souls, both the souls of the righteous and of the wicked, for final judgment. The resurrection provides an absolute grounding and hope. Doctor Cristianopoulos responded by asking me some questions.
Derek:He asked whether or not that I I thought I was being too narrow, as there are indeed other moral systems which can be offered that don't require religion. There are systems of virtue ethics or deontological systems and consequentialist systems. There are many Christians, as well as those who consider themselves atheists, who adhere to these various systems and live what most Christians would consider to be pretty moral lives. People don't tend to act sadistically apart from a Christian moral framework that adheres to the resurrection. What does the resurrection provide for coherence that other proposed systems can't provide?
Derek:Why bring religion into the conversation unnecessarily? When there's already so much conflict in the world, why emphasize resurrection and divide the anarchist community into orthodox religious and unorthodox or non religious factions? I personally think this distinction is a vital one. But before I can explain why I think someone ought to incorporate the resurrection into their beliefs, I wanna first discuss how the currently proposed ethical systems that, doctor Christianopoulos, brought up or or were implied. I wanna discuss how I think those things are lacking.
Derek:Because I think a lot of times in order to build a case, you need to see, what the problem is or or where the lack is. So let's talk about the incoherence of alternative moral theories. The first of 2 problems that I have with alternative moral theories is that they're arbitrary. So let's look first at virtue ethics. And virtue ethics believes that what is vital to morality and purpose in a given situation is that we foster particular virtues throughout our lives.
Derek:But without a divine decree of what these virtues ought to be or without platonic essences of sorts woven into the fabric of the universe, who's to determine which virtues ought to be pursued over others? Different cultures at different times or individuals may value certain virtues over others. And who's to say that any one of those cultures is right or wrong? Arbitrariness also arises when virtues come into competition with themselves. For example, do we kill an intruder to love our neighbor, or do we refuse to kill the intruder and love our enemy?
Derek:Virtues can also come into competition with other virtues. For example, do we run into battle to grow bravery and selflessness, or do we cultivate wisdom and ambition by running away and living to fight another day under better odds for ourselves and perhaps doing more good in the long term. Consequentialist Ethics also face arbitrariness. Consequentialism identifies some goal or end as being that which justifies us a particular position. One's goal might be the survival of oneself or one's family, one's community, one's country.
Derek:Another goal might be to gain political advantage over an opponent so that one can impose their their morality on a nation. The goals can be pretty much anything. But once again, without a creator who decrees an end goal or without platonic essences, which weave these goals into the fabric of the universe, the goals consequentialism identifies are arbitrary. The ends may justify the means, but who justifies the ends? Anyone and everyone.
Derek:It's arbitrary. Finally, there's deontological ethics. Now Deontological Ethics runs into the same arbitrariness as the other two theories. And because it houses divine command theory, I wanted to to save it for the end here. On Deontological Ethics, we ought to do some moral action because we are obliged to do it.
Derek:Without God or Platonic Essences, it's unclear what gives us objective obligations. And without a personal creator, it's difficult to see how we have any obligations at all since obligations are rooted in relationships. I can't have an obligation to a car unless that car is being borrowed from a friend. But then my obligation isn't really to the car, but rather to my friend. However, deontological ethics houses something called divine command theory, which posits that something is good or bad simply because God commands it.
Derek:This then is not arbitrary from our perspective. If God commands something, then we're in relationship with him, and we have a directive, and that's objective. The directive is objective. We don't get to make up morality. However, the question then becomes, what grounds God's command?
Derek:If God can just decree anything and it be deemed moral, he could command a brother to rape his sister, and it become moral the moment the decree is made. What we now call evil could become good in an instant. And that possibility, even if even if God never invokes that, even if if that never becomes actuality, that would mean that morality was arbitrary as it could be changed on a whim, and this fragile mutability indicates the strength of its foundation. Divine Command Theory accepts one of the terrible horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma, and it it runs with it. It's an easy position to run with because it allows one to just read the Bible and take everything as directive without discernment.
Derek:But that's also where we get the justification of things like slavery and native eradication. Didn't God command the Israelites to take slaves and virgin women in conquest? Didn't God seek to wipe out the heathen Canaanites who worshiped other idols? Such morality leads to a terribly immoral universe of atrocity and a morality that I'm not sure could be called good without rewiring our most basic moral intuitions and redefining completely the word good. Beyond being arbitrary, alternative moral theories to what I'm gonna propose are self centered.
Derek:Now this might be a hard pill to swallow that moral theories could be self centered. How does that work out? Let's talk about it. Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics is my favorite ethical system outside of the system that I'm going to, propose later because I think Virtue Ethics comes the closest to getting morality right.
Derek:It's hard to conceive what would be problematic with a system which encourages individuals to build positive character traits, to build virtues. What could possibly be self centered about growing in love or growing in patience? The goal of virtue ethics is for an individual to obtain particular virtues, which isn't necessarily self centered so long as a part of this ethic expects individuals to seek the well-being of and growth of virtue in others. The self centeredness, as I see it, arises in at least two places. The first, it appears in scenarios where there is competition for virtue.
Derek:So let me give you an example. Let's say that love is the most valuable virtue one can pursue on virtue ethics. And let's say that there's a scenario that arises where a tragedy is about to occur, but there's one individual and only one individual who can sacrifice themselves in order to prevent this tragedy. I think maybe of, like, Independence Day where, the the drunk dad goes and and flies into the alien spaceship. I mean, I guess somebody else could've no.
Derek:I I think he had a bomb on him, and he he was the only one who could've really done that. So example like that. Now such an action would instantiate love to a great degree. And when you watch Independence Day, you do get that heartwarming feeling of, wow. He he sacrificed himself for others.
Derek:But what if there were 2 competitors for sacrifice? What if 2 individuals were both willing to sacrifice their lives and both able to in order to love well and in order to prevent tragedy? One competitor could be generous and allow the other to sacrifice himself and, therefore, express the most love. But is that generosity as greater good as the love missed out on? Would it be immoral or unwise on virtue ethics to sacrifice an opportunity to express the greatest virtue, love, for a lesser virtue of generosity?
Derek:In the middle of the night, one of the competitors, for this for this love to to sacrifice himself, He left. He sneaked out in the middle of the night and sacrificed himself, whereas the other individual was intending to sacrifice himself in the morning. On a version of virtue ethics where love is the ultimate virtue to be cultivated, the individual who ends up sacrificing self and prevents another from such an opportunity is actually, in a way, very self centered. He's hogging all the love, the virtue creation of love to himself. Even though he sacrificed himself, he ensured that, he was the one who was able to cultivate for himself the greatest meaning and morality in life while his competitor could not.
Derek:Virtue ethics might tend to seek the building up of others. You know, if you're working on, generosity, in general, that's going to help others and not be self, self centered. Nevertheless, that only happens so long as there aren't others competing for that, which is the truly valuable virtue in in any given scenario. But there's a second way. Even even if you're kinda like, okay.
Derek:I I kinda get that. But let me let me give you a second way that Virtue Ethics can be self centered. Virtue Ethics has egoism infused into it. It just inherently, because in the ability to form a virtue in the first place, that creates egoism. The goal of virtue ethics is to cultivate virtues which are not yet present.
Derek:But how does one cultivate virtues which aren't yet present? One needs tension or animosity. So while playing at virtues can be built to a great degree apart from relationship, like, say, learning patience and temperance through fasting or by learning wisdom and saving money rather than spending on whatever you want. There are some virtues which can only either be built through or grown to their maximum through conflict with others. Paul perhaps makes this case the most succinctly in Romans when he declares that rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person, someone might possibly dare to die.
Derek:But God demonstrates his own love for us in this. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. If virtue ethics is correct, then for me to grow, I need others to be unvirtuous. My virtue and the realization of my morality requires the unvirtuous to exist and to persist in their vices? How can I grow on my love to its maximal degree unto enemy love if there aren't any unvirtuous enemies to love?
Derek:For Christians, Virtue Ethics ends up having 2 other problems. The first is that, like the divine command theorists and their deontological morality, Christian verse virtue ethicists seem to grab one of Euthyphro's horns, just the opposite one from the divine command theorist. If our goal is a particular virtue, then achieving that virtue is the end goal of morality. This means that if God is perfectly moral, his end goal would seem to be the maintenance of whatever virtue or virtues were required for morality. So unlike the divine command theorist, God's decrees wouldn't be arbitrary and mutable, but rather, they would be commands that God himself is required to adhere to because there was some moral ethic or standard outside of himself.
Derek:The second problem Christian virtue ethicists run into, or at least the non Catholic ones, is in explaining how we can become perfect and sinless in the new heavens and earth without some sort of purgation. If virtues are built over time and through trials and difficulty, then we have to ask how individuals could suddenly find themselves perfectly virtuous upon their resurrection. So, hopefully, you can see virtue ethics runs afoul of quite a number of ways in which it can be, self centered. Let's talk about deontological ethics. Deontological morality also seems to find itself wrestling with egoism.
Derek:And perhaps the simplest example I can give of Deontologists, which would help you see the the self centeredness immediately, is the example of the Pharisees. Now the Pharisees were very devoted to the commands of God, yet they were the biggest group of conceited jerks you can imagine. Yet Jesus says in Matthew that we need to be even more righteous than they are. They valued the decrees of God and were right to do so, yet they had a problem in that they only valued the decrees simply because they were decreed by God, which missed the relational heart and substance God intended to flow through those decrees and guide their implementation. I can tell you from firsthand experience that deontological ethics are selfish and empty, because I've employed this ethic at times.
Derek:I employ this ethic often when I work with the poor. There's so many times that the poor I have worked with are trying to use me, objectify me, lie to me, and get whatever they can out of me. It's exhausting. It's overwhelming. Most of the time, I persist in working with them, not because I genuinely love them or even want to love them, but because I know that I'm supposed to work with them.
Derek:Now that's a deontological ethic. God told me to sort serve the poor, so I do it even though it's often, most of the times, without real genuine self sacrificial love. Now I think that deontological ethics are a good starting point as doing something because it's commanded and going through the motions can be a way to create disciplines, which then foster loves that weren't originally there. I pray to God that he grows in me a genuine love for the poor through my first obeying his commands. Following commands are good stepping stones to true morality and love.
Derek:But to make the following of commands the end of morality rather than the beginning turns you into an arrogant, judgmental, self righteous, whitewash tomb. And what about consequentialist ethics? I've got a whole season on consequentialism, so, you can go listen to that, and you can probably tell from the get go that, it's it's not my favorite system at all. Nevertheless, let's go through it and give you some examples of how consequentialism is self centered. Consequentialism and utilitarianism are the the easiest places that you're going to see self centeredness.
Derek:When there's some goal that you elevate to primacy, then anything else can be sacrificed to that goal. It's how electing corrupt politicians is justified because she's not as bad as that other guy. It's how wars and civilian deaths are justified, and the list could go on. I can kill my enemies so long as they're the enemies of the goal to which consequentialism tells me I must sacrifice all. My favorite example of consequentialist ethics is a quote from atheist Christopher Hitchens, who made the following statement in a debate against his brother, Peter Hitchens.
Derek:Doctor Hitchens said, it's in my interest that people don't suffer. I don't want someone bleeding to death from AIDS on my doorstep, not just for their sake. For mine, I don't want that. Oscar Wilde in the soul of man under socialism puts it very beautifully. He says, socialism would free us from the awful necessity of living for others.
Derek:George Bernard Shaw, when he ran for office in London, said that there should be no more houses built for the working classes without baths. It was objected by certain politicians who said, why give the poor baths? They're so stupid. They won't know how to use them. They'll keep coal in them.
Derek:They don't deserve baths. You're wasting your compassion on them. He said, I don't want them to have a bath for their sake. I want them to have a bath for my sake. Now that's the right mix of self interest and morality.
Derek:Notice how the goal here was comfort for the greatest number of people. If there are a bunch of smelly people running around, that's going to be inconvenient for everyone and inconvenient for me, which is what really matters on consequentialism. If we can cheaply and efficiently provide baths, then let's do it for our sake, not for the sake of the poor. In fact, this is one reason why nonviolence tends to work, because most people are significantly consequentialist. Justice issues don't start to become resolved until it becomes inconvenient to the status quo majority not to fix injustice or until it becomes convenient for the status quo to coop justice issues for political power.
Derek:Indeed, this is what CRT is all about. Right? CRT recognizes that the history of justice legislation isn't really about fixing justice issues, but often, it's merely intended to abate the loud outcry, and it conserves the status quo as much as it is able to. Justice legislation tends to be to be damage control rather than real justice. Consequentialism is all about some goal rather than someone.
Derek:The goal may at times be someone, like saving the president's life or protecting one's family, but those goals are goals to which those on the outside can be sacrificed. Consequentialism always allows for and always involves human sacrifice. So all of these systems are self centered to a to a certain degree in in slightly different ways. One of the greatest sacrifices that you get with with any of these alternative moral systems is the sacrifice of the logical and the intuitive. Now when I think about the word altruism on doctor Hitchens' system, I have to ask myself how that notion is recognized as altruism at all.
Derek:How can you call helping an AIDS victim or a poor person altruistic when you're not seeking their good but your own? Altruism on alternative moral theories becomes its own antithesis. It means the very thing of which it is the exact opposite. Altruism is it merely becomes a synonym for egoism. It's just housed in its antinomic partner.
Derek:While this antithesis may be the most pronounced on consequentialist systems, it rears its ugly head in subtler yet significant ways on deontological systems and virtue ethics too. Now those are my 2 main qualms with most moral philosophies. They're steeped in arbitrariness and egoism and cause altruism and love to become muddied, if not unintelligible and meaningless. Okay. So we took a look at alternative moral theories and and what I think are 2 of their most glaring issues.
Derek:Now let's go back to my conversation with doctor Kristinopoulos. I obviously didn't get to lay out my whole case to him as to why I didn't find most moral philosophies uncompelling. But I did get to explain how I thought self centeredness was a big part of the problem and how words like altruism lost any sense of their meaning. It was then that doctor Christianopoulos asked me a very important question, and, really, the question which gets to the heart of of the discussion. It's all well and good for me to sit back and throw stones at other philosophies, other moral philosophies.
Derek:But did I, myself, live in a glass house which could be shattered just as easily? Doctor Christianopoulos asked me how grounding morality in the resurrection avoided my own critique of self centeredness. If I need the resurrection in order to motivate me to be good, if it's the promise of reward in heaven or the threat of torturous punishment in hell, which entices me to be moral, then isn't my morality based on self preservation and therefore egoism? That's a great question and the question that I wanna answer. But before I can answer that, we need to go back to the beginning and and tell the story of why the resurrection, as portrayed in the Bible, was necessary in the first place, especially for those of you who may not be familiar with Christianity, or if you're those those, anarcho Christians who, don't think the resurrection's a big deal.
Derek:You kinda need to know the setup for the resurrection. According to Orthodox Christianity, in the beginning, only God existed. The ontological argument tells us that God was full of all the great making properties. 1 of the least disputable great making properties is necessary is existence. It is better to exist than not to exist.
Derek:Thus, God, who is uncaused and uncreated, necessarily existed from eternity past. Of course, God, being the perfect being, would likely be omnibenevolent as well, so we can ascribe to God the character of goodness, which would include things like always loving, always truthful, etcetera. In God's goodness and love, he created a world and shared in that goodness and love with humanity. Humanity was created to image God and to be in relation with him forever. Like God, they were composed of spirit, which was built and purposed to live forever, provided God's commands were kept.
Derek:Existence and holiness were to be the pursuits of humanity as they created and bettered the world in love, like their creator, and as they walked with God and each other. Their eyes were always focused away from themselves and onto the other. So much that they were ignorant even of their own nakedness. With their eyes outward and God's preserving gaze on them, humanity acted in a world in perfect goodness. For those familiar with the story of the Bible, you, of course, know what happened next.
Derek:Humanity took their purpose and their morality, which to this point was grounded by their creator in their very essences, and made purpose and morality both arbitrary and self centered. The very first thing to happen after humanity's sin wasn't lightning bolts from God. No. It was worse. It was separation.
Derek:For the very first time, Adam and Eve recognized their nakedness because for the very first time, they looked to themselves, and they were alone. No longer was the foundation for their belief and actions other oriented, but it was self oriented. Eve, rather than being confident in the provision of a god and husband who loved her and looked out for her interests first, began to look to herself for preservation and to define that which was good for herself. And, of course, Adam did the same thing. This separation was not only evident in the realization of their nakedness and the blaming of other, but it was also made evident in the curse that God recognized soon afterwards.
Derek:Adam and Eve would no longer be in harmony with nature either. They would no longer be in harmony with each other, and they would no longer be in harmony with God. In their attempt to define their own purpose and their own morality, a groundless, arbitrary, and selfish endeavor, they set their life's trajectory to be one of unfulfillment and their eternal destiny as one of separation from the source of existence. The story of humanity became a tragedy at this point. Humanity was hopelessly separated from any chance at meaning, purpose, or morality, since their self centeredness kept them from residing in the being of God and his goodness.
Derek:And their path, which led to eternal separation from the existent one, meant that their very existence, their very beings, were on a course set for impending destruction that we call death. They were separated not only from the tree of life, which preserved their bodies, but also from the very giver of life, which preserved their souls. Being or substance and being, as in purpose or meaning, were out of reach. But God, being the omnibenevolent lover of souls that he is, was not content to leave humanity in hopeless despair. What kind of God would he be had he left them there?
Derek:Certainly not the God of the ontological argument. God, from the very beginning of humanity's rebellion, and even from before all eternity, had been planning a way to restoration. The way of hope was to send a representative for humanity who could show them the path to living like a true human, living in perfect love and harmony with God and others, and fulfilling his purpose and obedience regardless of the consequences. Such a one would be willing to love, to do good, and to embody the very character of God in all circumstances without compromise, even if such actions led to seemingly foolish and fruitless outcomes, like suffering in cross. This true human, this second Adam, would not only show humanity how to live with purpose and morality, but he would provide a way for humanity's relationship with God to be restored and reconnected.
Derek:This second Adam would not only bring the words of life, but he would also pave the way to true life and to true repentance. When Jesus, the son of God, incarnated himself on earth, he lived a perfect life focused on God and others. He never compromised the essence of God or deviated from that which God required of him. He lived rightly all the way to his torturous end on a cross, maintaining a love even for his enemies, even for the very ones who nailed him to the cross. Father, forgive them.
Derek:However, were Jesus to have died just as Adam did, there may have been an example for us to follow, but it would be example without hope. We may, by following the Christ's example to the best of our ability, have ended up connecting with God and his purpose from time to time, but there would be no promise of a restoration of our ultimate purpose, continued existence in relationship with God, imaging him. Thus, the Christ rose from the dead through the power of the spirit, which was not only a vindication of who he is and what his status is before God, but it is also a glimpse of the promise that we have in that Christ. We too can one day be connected to God through the true human, the second Adam. So the climax of this story is certainly the resurrection of the Christ.
Derek:It only becomes the climax, though, in light of the end of the story, in light of what that resurrection gets us. Because if you don't understand what the resurrection really gets us, it may seem more anticlimactic than climactic. So what does the resurrection get us? Well, all Orthodox Christians have a concept of what happens to humans after the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Protestants tend to call this concept glorification, but I find that it's not something we Protestants really talk about or elaborate on very much.
Derek:Since the Eastern Orthodox Church hashes this out much better, in my opinion, I I wanna use some of their ideology and terminology to explain what we believe happens in the Eschaton. The Orthodox have a term that they use other than glorification. They call what happens to believers in the new heavens and earth Theosis or deification. You probably tell from the second term that they think that we become God in a sense. And I know many Protestants will balk at this just like I did when I first came across it, but didn't even Jesus and the Psalmist say that you're gods?
Derek:Glorification, theosis, and deification all say essentially the same thing. The Orthodox recognized that it would be heretical to claim that we will become God in one sense. In this sense, which is off limits to us, they would deem his essence. We will never be like God in his essence, in his, whatever the the Nicene Creed calls it. Right?
Derek:God is of one substance, and that substance is father, son, and holy spirit. They all share in that. We don't share in that essence in that substance. So God and his essence is omnibenevolent. He's always truthful.
Derek:He's omnipotent, omniscient, self existent, etcetera. We will not at all be in our essences, omnipotent or any other such thing. Another way to put this, which I really liked, I don't remember who said it, but I I saw it a bunch of times and it's perfect, is we become by grace what God is by nature. There's a problem here, because all Christians know that, at least what what the Orthodox teaching is, is that we will be like God in at least one sense. We will become perfect in that we are never able to sin again.
Derek:We'll become all good. Being unable to sin is certainly a characteristic of of God's, which is contained within his essence. So in a sense, we will share in God's essence. But if we won't ever be the essence of God, then how do we how do we work around that? Well, the Orthodox do a fantastic thing here, And, they they do something very similar to the way that they justify icons.
Derek:When they justify icons, they do so by, you know, they say, they're not idols. We're not worshiping idols. And the way that they they get around this, which I think is is legitimate, I don't know that in practice, it isn't often idolatry, but at least in theory, I think what they say is right. That, they distinguish between worship and veneration, and Protestants don't distinguish that. They say, well, if you venerate an icon, you are, you're worshiping an idol.
Derek:But we do distinguish that because when we get done reading our, Tolkien book or, our CS Lewis book or whatever book we're reading, And we we turn over the book, and on the back, we see a a picture of the author. And I'm like or RC Sproul from my crowd. And I'm like, what what I wouldn't have given to meet to have met him or, wow. He's so good. I am so glad that God gave him.
Derek:You're venerating him. Right? And we say, well, you know, that's not idolatry. Right? It's not a graven image.
Derek:Oh, yeah. It is. It's a graven image on a book. And it's it's more lifelike than a wooden idol. It'd be easier to actually worship RC Sproul or CS Lewis or Tolkien than it would to worship a a statue.
Derek:So we do distinguish between veneration and worship, and and we don't give the Orthodox that, that that, grace and understanding. But, anyway, they do something very similar when they make a distinction with, Theosis. So how how do we get around that Christians will kind of seem to have God's essence, but yet we don't? We we aren't God's essence. And so what the what the Orthodox do is, because they're not pantheists, they don't believe that, you know, everything is God.
Derek:They distinguish between becoming like God in essence, which we don't do, and becoming like God in our energies, which is what they say happens to us. Now my understanding is that the Orthodox don't really explain this in super great detail. They're they're more accepting of mystery than Protestants on a lot of areas, And the distinction between essences and energies, they're like, I don't know. I'll take a shot at it, but it's it's all really mystical. But the point is that they know we become like God.
Derek:We know we become like God. Like, that's obvious. We do. Yet they know that we can't become like him in essence or nature, so they they use a mysterious term energies to explain this distinction. In the eschaton, because of the resurrection, we will be connected to God and become like God in our energies being connected to him in relationship through the spirit of the resurrected Christ.
Derek:While God remains necessarily existent and perfect in essence, we will become contingently perfect and perpetually existent by being connected to him in our energies. I recognize that all that can sound really mumbo jumbowy, so basic summary here. You don't need to know essences and energies and all that stuff. The point is that because of the resurrection, we will be able to be connected to God in some sort of way that allows us to partake in the things necessary to fulfill, our purpose. The the the way that we were created.
Derek:We were created to exist forever, and we were created to to image the character of God. This other focused love. So the resurrection gets us a continued existence into eternity, and it allows for us to be connected to God and become like him in our energies. But what does that really get us in regard to a better, more coherent moral philosophy? And how does that help us to find the ground and ground the purpose and morality?
Derek:And how does that prevent Christian purpose and morality from being self centered like doctor Christianopoulos, brought up very legitimately? So I'm gonna argue that Theosis grounds morality, and it it provides obligation. Whatever humanity's purpose and morality is, that purpose and morality requires existence. So in line with Descartes' I think, therefore, I am idea, we can say that for morality or purpose to be pursued and achieved, one might argue that I exist, therefore, I act. One can't accomplish goals or fulfill purposes or do moral things unless they act, and actions can't be made without existence.
Derek:And to exist is to act. So at the root of morality and purpose, there has to be existence, because you can't be moral or purposeful without existing. And this is true, of course, of God. Right? God is the self existent one, the one who has always existed and has had the perfect existence, the necessary existence, the greatest level of existence that there is.
Derek:Now regardless of whether you believe in eternal conscious torment in hell or annihilationism, what the resurrection does is it it provides a way for 1 to, continue their existence, right, by avoiding either, metaphysical cessation in hell under eternal conscious torment or, ontological cessation through annihilationism. The resurrection gets us life forever and a life where we can act, in in accordance with our being, our true being, our true purpose as God created us to be. So the resurrection allows for our continued existence and therefore continued actions, which can be aimed at the fulfillment of our purpose and which could be morally good. However, as Adam and Eve showed us, one could also continue in a good world for a time only to make an immoral act contrary to one's designed purpose. And this is where the resurrection and, I think, theosis, which is what the resurrection gets us, I think this is where they provide for us once again.
Derek:Beyond mere existence, morality and purpose also require particular aims. Christianity should argue that the aims of humanity are to live implementing means which are concomitant with the ends of God. While we humans, especially in a fallen state, may not know the deep specific plans of God, we do know the character of God. Therefore, our purpose as image bearers of God is to live implementing means concomitant with the character of God. Now I may not know God's ultimate plan and whether or not he wants me to take a specific job, but I do know that God wants me to love, and he doesn't want me to lie.
Derek:If I have a choice between 2 jobs in front of me, one of which requires me to objectify others and manipulate data, and the other which allows me to display love and honesty that earns me much less money, then clearly, the ends of God are for me to take the not to take the evil job since God's means are concomitant with his ends and as should mine be also. Purpose and morality then are infused into our very beings. We were created in the image of God and our purpose to live in line with his character. Now this means that contrary to other moral theories we evaluated, Christian moral theory that I'm proposing here houses value and purpose intrinsically in moral and valuable beings, and the value and purpose intrinsic to beings is sourced from a self existent, omnibenevolent personal creator, which makes morality and goodness relational and, therefore, provides obligation. So though as in Virtue Ethics, there is some standard of value or some purposed goal, which really exists outside of a being, on the the view that I'm proposing, which I'll call a morality of being or a mob for short, This value and purpose, they're infused or imparted to a being itself.
Derek:It's not outside of the being. At this point, you might ask yourself what the problem is that resurrection solves here. If humanity were created with value, purpose, and goodness intrinsically, then shouldn't we persist in those things? Because intrinsic properties can't be taken away. Right?
Derek:The problem is that it's it's true that the intrinsic cannot be taken away. A human has intrinsic value so long as they remain a human. The intrinsic value is tied to an identity, not an instantiation. That's why tyrannical politicians, which I suppose is probably a tautology, It's why those politicians so often fight over how to define human. For a very basic example, we recognize that a dead human shell isn't human in the the full sense, and we can therefore incinerate it into dust and eulogize its former occupant as a sign of respect.
Derek:While incinerating a live human, while speaking highly of him, would show something rather different. We recognize that ontological death alters the identity of a human so that the intrinsic value we ascribe to them dissipates, at least from their localized bodies. The goal here isn't to argue how we define human and what values we ought to ascribe, but rather that intrinsic properties are intrinsic to a being's identity. I believe the same thing can be true of metaphysical death. Though I disagree with Augustine on some very significant theological points, I think that his adherence to the privation theory of evil makes a lot of sense.
Derek:The privation theory of evil essentially says that evil isn't a thing. It's not some addition to the system or some substance. Rather, evil is a subtraction, a detraction, or a lack of something. There are many rebuttals to this along with counter rebuttals, and one might turn also to Aquinas to hear arguments for the privation theory of evil. But all that's beyond the scope of of this article.
Derek:For the moment, simply recognize that the privation theory of evil is one of my big assumptions in arguing a case for a morality of being. When God told Adam and Eve that they would die on the day in which they ate of the forbidden fruit, I suppose that, in a sense, what God said was true ontologically as Adam and Eve may have begun the entropic process of death that day. I I really don't know. But many theologians have recognized that this promise of death on the day is somewhat problematic if viewed as ontological death. That's why many theologians have posited that a spiritual death, or as I'll call it metaphysical death, was what was primarily in view in God's warning.
Derek:For on the day that Adam and Eve sinned against God and began to look to themselves as the source and definition of purpose and morality, they severed their metaphysical beings from the true source of goodness and purpose. If one adheres to a privation theory of evil, then Adam and Eve died metaphysically at the very moment they looked to self and away from God. Adam and Eve had been embracing substance and fullness, then turned to embrace vacuity and void, nonexistence. God, in a moment, spoke the world into being ex nihilo, out of nothing. Adam and Eve, in a moment, took that vast good universe and turned it into nothingness.
Derek:For there is nothing smaller than the singularity of a human consciousness turned in on itself. This turning inward to nothingness is what sin is. It is an embracing of the vacuous, that which doesn't accomplish purpose, truly fulfill needs and desires, or recognize the substance and value of the created world. Sin and evil are an absence of being, not the accumulation of bad being on top of a good or neutral one. In this sense then, Adam and Eve lost their humanity metaphysically speaking.
Derek:Rather than embrace the substance of morality and purpose by embracing the source of this morality and purpose, and the others infused with the same goodness, humanity embraced nothingness. One day, every human would eventually experience ontological death, but on that day, humanity began to experience metaphysical death. This is exactly why the resurrection is so important to both morality and goodness. The resurrection doesn't merely promise to breathe life back into the shells of our bodies once they die to reanimate our corpses. It also promises to reanimate our purpose, our morality.
Derek:The resurrection takes our eyes off ourselves and puts them onto the one who promises both ontological life and metaphysical life. As our eyes are turned to our savior and as our savior connects us to the divine, the singularity we have become explodes outward into a big bang, and we become complete substances and beings again, a universe teeming with beautiful life. While the resurrection does indeed give us continued existence, which is necessary for purpose and morality, the way in which resurrection connects us to the divine and theosis is what ensures that this perpetual existence will never see corruption like God's original good good world did. Whereas Adam and Eve in the garden had a connection to God, which was conditioned upon their persistence and good works, the life, death, resurrection, and intercession of the Son of God provides us with a perpetual internal spiritual communion with God at all times. When we are in the new heavens and the new earth, we will be in the presence of God at all times as the Spirit of God will be forever living within us.
Derek:This Spirit will not only be testifying to us about the living God, but it will also make us direct participants of him at all times. It is in these two ways that the resurrection and theosis provide for purpose and morality. They perpetuate our existence, and they ensure that our existence will be a full existence of substance, always accomplishing that for which our beings were purposed, and always doing that which is good and in line with God's character while forever being in relationship and communion with the divine. Now at this point, you might be a bit frustrated. There should be one major question which still looms large in your minds, and you might think that I just haven't answered it because I haven't.
Derek:You might say it makes sense on a morality of being that it would be good for us to exist and that it would be good for us to image our creator, but the pursuit of these goals still seems rather selfish. Seeking the continuation of my existence and my fulfillment seems to be a fairly self interested endeavor. Mimicking God because that's what I'm obligated to do, and I don't wanna get judged for it is pretty self interested, just as is desiring living forever. So even if theosis gives us an intelligible grounding for purpose and morality, it still has the trap of egoism to escape in order to be complete. You may recall that one of my objections to virtue ethics is that a part of its self centeredness was the requirement that there be other beings who are evil and therefore not fully virtuous.
Derek:For if everyone were virtuous, how could my virtue grow in that I can never learn to love enemies? Were there no unvirtuous people worth hating? Virtue ethics, therefore, requires that someone else lose out so that I can better myself. This problem lies, I think, in that virtue theory seems to take a more additive theory of good. It believes that I can grow my patience and my love towards some pinnacle.
Derek:Yet we see clearly through the second Adam, Jesus, that there was not some goodness he attained or added to his character throughout his life. That would imply super irrigation that the perfect human who is also divine added to his goodness over time. Rather, we see that Jesus was always perfect and that perfection arose not in adding goodness or virtue, but in always foregoing evil and actions not in accord with his purpose and nature, refusing to embrace non being, nonexistence. On a morality of being, however, there are some similarities with virtue ethics, but with strikingly significant differences. On a mob, as with virtue ethics, other beings are required.
Derek:How could I show love if there was nobody to show love to? Relationships are required for morality and purpose grounded in the character of God. But whereas virtue ethics focuses on looking to the good and grasping at it, causing it to grow, a morality of being sees things a little differently. Since evil isn't something but rather nothing, it isn't in competition with good. It is the absence of good.
Derek:Whereas on virtue ethics, someone may be an evil being or a good being, on a morality of being, someone is either being or not being, metaphysically speaking. On a morality of being, when I choose to do evil, I'm not foregoing some good thing to choose some evil thing in its place. No. I'm rather choosing non being and nothingness over being. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but I assure you that it's not.
Derek:Virtue ethics has as its goal adding to or growing in goodness. Virtue ethics seeks to add to our being. Immorality of being has as its goal the embracing of true or full being by the avoidance of embracing nonexistence. Immorality of being seeks to embrace true being. To put it in other words, virtue ethics seeks to add to being while being ethics seeks to uncover and uphold being.
Derek:Virtue ethics seeks to attain something which is not yet, while immorality of being seeks to recover something which once was. Virtue ethics seeks to do more through self, while a morality of being seeks to plug up the holes and not lose self. Virtue ethics seeks attainment, while morality of being seeks restoration. So how does this tie into the avoidance of self centeredness on a morality of being? Both virtue ethics and immorality of being require that there be other beings, but virtue ethics requires that there be some beings which don't achieve their goal of virtuosity.
Derek:Morality is essentially a closed system because for my attainment of love, I need your unlovability. You can't pump more morality into the system than can be offset by immorality. What virtue ethics seeks is a perpetual motion morality machine, which can forever grow in goodness without evil. The problem is that a virtue ethics position requires moral entropy, I e evil and friction, in order to run. Immorality of Being also proposes a closed system and seeks to build a perpetual motion machine, but it's a system which recognizes a different problem.
Derek:Rather than needing the infusing of more good for moral motion while failing to fix the loss from the system, morality of being recognizes that Genesis is right about the world God created. It already was good. What needs to happen then is not that more good gets infused into the system, but that the leak be plugged. The moral friction must be stopped because we're dealing with a privation theory of evil. The problem isn't that we need more good infused into the world to combat evil as evil isn't even a thing.
Derek:The issue is that we must stop embracing nothingness, stop losing morality and purpose to the void. Our closed system has a leak which must be plugged rather than seeking to dump more fluid into the system while allowing the leak to continue. Of course, a refusal to embrace evil or nothingness will appear as good, but the emphasis is quite different from that of virtue ethics. We are seeking to live as the ontological and metaphysical beings we were created to be rather than trying to become better beings. The end goal isn't the attainment of complete virtue or super irrigation, but the status quo of normalcy, being who we ought to be, truly human.
Derek:If what we are seeking to do is to stop the leaks, then unlike on virtue ethics, on a morality of being, there isn't competition for resources. I don't need someone to hate in order to grow my enemy love, though perhaps having enemies would allow me to put on display how deep my love truly is, but I don't need that. A perfect world isn't one in which I attain my virtues, and I make it. A perfect world is one in which all creation is restored to its true being. All moral leaks are plugged.
Derek:The void is once again filled by the word of God, just as it was at creation. Immorality of being seeks the good, and that good is only accomplished when nothingness is eradicated and the good of all abounds. Immorality of being is communal. It's others focused. This fits much better than virtue ethics if one values a strong Trinitarian emphasis.
Derek:It also helps explain why community, discipleship, and example are at the forefront of the Christian life and why asceticism goes so wrong. Yes. We can uncover some virtues through hardship, but we primarily uncover our being through community. Whereas virtue ethics may require actual enemies to grow my love, morality of being doesn't. There will be many in the new heavens and earth who never knew moral enemies, yet have a love that would sacrifice self even for the greatest scoundrel.
Derek:How is this so? It's because the example of the true human and the complete being empowers their love, not because some circumstances or experiences had to add it to their being. So, yes, I do want to plug the moral leaks in my life so I can live less in the nothingness and more in the being that I was created to be. In that sense, sure, there is self interest, but I don't find true being in self, but rather in community. I find it outside myself.
Derek:And if I live more as the being that I was created to be, then I will look more and more like a naked Adam and Eve in the garden who knew not their nakedness. To truly be and to truly be moral, it means that I will look outward to God, others, and nature. These are the 2, perhaps 3, greatest commandments. This is to directly fight the curse that we observe in Genesis 3. As the spirit of God removes more and more nothingness from my life, and as I live as I was intended to live, I will look more outside of myself.
Derek:When I can look far enough outside myself, I may be able to give away my money and clothes because I see not my own nakedness, yet I'm broken by the nakedness of others. And in being, in truly being, the depiction of the reign of the son of God in my life invites and draws others in to do the same. A morality of being, rather than necessitate the exclusion of at least some from a realized eschaton, invites and desires all to come in. All of creation groans and awaits restoration. As we become more the beings we were intended to be, we groan more and more with it and look less to ourselves.
Derek:Now I don't wanna end this section by picking only on virtue ethics, especially because I think that it's the 2nd best moral system out there. So I wanna quickly look at how the resurrection helps us in another way related to selflessness. On a consequentialist moral ethic, others are left out of the good dream. Doing what's best for the majority means that there is a minority for whom the good is not done. On a planet with a population as large as ours, that minority could be close to 4,000,000,000 people.
Derek:Consequentialism has the potential to leave out quite a lot of individuals from its system, though it does seek to maximize the experience of the good. Yet in the name of the good, all manner of evil can be excused on consequentialism. One's most general and intuitive moral standards can be discarded on consequentialism if the end goal can be achieved by the discarding of these morals. As with many other ideas here, I don't have time to back all of that up as it's not within the scope of this article. But the resurrection of the Christ helps us to avoid this pitfall of sacrificing others for some end, whether that end be determined by us or fab fabric into the universe.
Derek:In fact, the resurrection of the Christ helps us to not even sacrifice one person, regardless of how noble we may believe the ends are going to be. On consequentialism, the identified goal is what must be preserved. Perhaps that's happiness for the greatest amount of people or survival of the human race. Whatever it may be, the goal is ultimate. A person is not.
Derek:But on a morality of being, being is the goal. This being is both ontological, instantiated existence, and metaphysical, existence in line with one's purpose or true being. That means that I must pursue both the lives of all beings and the realization of true being for all beings. Beings cannot be sacrificed for any other goal. That means I can't mar myself, that which would be metaphysical being, and sacrifice my family's physical lives, their ontological beings, by pocketing my money and refusing to feed them.
Derek:But it also means that I can't mar myself, my metaphysical being, by ending my enemy's life, his ontological being, in order to protect my family's lives, their ontological beings. I may accomplish more good by saving more beings ontologically if I kill a lone intruder, but being unloving still mars me and ends the existence of another being. Rather than plugging up the leak of evil, the embracing of a lesser evil approach accepts moral friction as a necessary part of the system and embraces it. Rather than trusting God in his foolish means and becoming an example of unswerving obedience and fullness of being, the embracing of lesser evils depicts to the world that our belief that non being and the antithesis of God can be redefined as goods. Like Adam and Eve, we eat from the forbidden tree.
Derek:In attempting to uphold God's good world through adhering to a foolish veto, as Chesterton calls it, we become wise in our own eyes and rend the cosmos asunder. One might think that the morality of being faces a problem which is indistinguishable from the consequentialist one, as the goal on the morality of being is merely shifted to being rather than to happiness or some some other standard. If an aggressor comes to harm my family and failing to prevent him from killing my family, am I not actually worse off on my system? Even if my killing of an intruder mars my metaphysical being, isn't me killing 1 person less marring to the system as a whole than allowing the intruder to kill 5 persons? And isn't the total loss of life also less if I kill 1 compared to the aggressor's 5?
Derek:This is precisely where the resurrection shines most beautifully and powerfully. The resurrection of the Christ does a number of things for me in this above situation. First, it clearly shows me not only enemy love more morality, but a morality which refuses compromise even in the face of seeming foolish defeat. If the Christ did it and God vindicated him, then I should seek to do it too. But while powerful, a vindicated example is the least of what the resurrection gets me, for it also gives me the promise of ontological resurrection or the preservation of ontological being.
Derek:As the very first Westminster catechism question asks, what is your only comfort in life and death? And the response? He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly father, not a hair can fall from my head. Indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for him.
Derek:Because God preserves our souls, our ontological beings, we know that we can continue choosing the good even in the face of threats and death. Resurrection ensures that I am not permanently sacrificing ontological being, for God preserves that ontological being as made evident through the resurrection of the son of God, our first fruits. The third benefit we get from the resurrection of the Christ is the securing of and sending of a spirit. Through the sending of the Christ spirit, we are empowered to embrace a metaphysical being we otherwise would not be able to. We have begun to be empowered to choose the good and refrain from self determining morality and the embracing of nonexistence.
Derek:And in our experience of the spirit, when faced with an aggressor, I can have the hope that the work which Christ's spirit has done in me can also, one day, even through my very example of truly being in self sacrifice, work in the aggressor's life to experience true meta metaphysical being himself. Other moral ethics ground their ends in our finite lives, whether that's in the growth of virtues now or the preservation of the lives of the most innocent we can now. Immorality of being, however, holds to a vision which spans much farther, which looks into the potential the future holds, knowing who holds the future. We can embrace seeming foolishness now because we know how powerfully God is able to use foolishness to change the world. What is beautiful about action on a morality of being is that it provides us utter freedom.
Derek:We are free to choose that which is in line with our being, our Creator, and the grain of the universe he created. We don't have to compromise our being or God's standards to accomplish something. We can always be who we were truly meant to be. Circumstances don't dictate our morality. Of course, some would argue that this is esoteric thinking.
Derek:It's almost gnostic, isn't it? This thinking downplays the material world to the point, of the preservation of my soul in the future as a justification for not lessening the amount of evil done now. But that's exactly where systems like consequentialism go wrong. They're terribly presumptuous. The system simultaneously assumes that embracing a little evil to prevent a greater evil is an isolated choice, which has no negative ramifications down the road.
Derek:And at the same time, it denies that a morality of being's embrace of a seeming foolish defeat now has any positive influence in the future. It assumes that if evil isn't stopped now, it will be harder for God to stop it later. What they fail to understand is that the seeds of evil's destruction are planted in our encounter with it, and the means or the seeds are the ends or the fruit, in the process of becoming. When we embrace evil to fight evil, we plant seeds of evil, which bloom later. When we fight evil with good, we plant seeds, which look small and harmless now and are seemingly trampled on and killed, but whose death bears good fruit through the power of God in the future.
Derek:For unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces much fruit. So on a morality of being, I can truly be and choose the good. Even my own enemy is good because the resurrection of the Christ and a foretaste of his power gives me confidence in my calling and his power to work good through all things, even if I can't conceive of how that's possible. But then again, I can conceive of it because I have been shown the resurrection, the vindication of the Christ who showed me such things are true.
Derek:The final benefit is, of course, theosis here. The resurrection ensures that we will one day be perfectly and fully in communion with God. While consequentialism errs in many different ways, perhaps one of the biggest reasons it errs is because its methodology is steeped in arrogance. Consequentialists attempt to take upon themselves the divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. The course of history is in their hands, and they know exactly how to direct it.
Derek:They know that their compromises and sacrifices of others are worth it because they know that they will achieve that which they determine in any given action. Their goal is right, and they know who and what to sacrifice to achieve it. And somehow, those who they sacrifice never end up being themselves. On a morality of being, the promise of theosis obtained for us through the resurrection prevents us from feeling the need, though we may feel the desire, to control the outcomes as we see fit. I can sacrifice myself, or I can choose to abstain from consequentialist analyses and justifications of any given situation because I can abdicate from the throne of self determination and self proclaimed divinity.
Derek:God has made my being and has both told me and shown me the means whereby I ought to live. He has shown me that he is the true king and the true human. And with his resurrection and subsequent reign, I have a promise of ultimate good being obtained one day in the future. That knowledge, that promise, and that hope allow me to always be ready to sacrifice self and never willing to sacrifice other. To wrap this section up, I want to come back to an idea we've mentioned already and an idea which is very important in the nonviolent community.
Derek:This idea is that the means are concomitant with their ends. Another way to put it would be that the ends are the means in the process of becoming. When you look at all the moral theories out there, the vast majority of them have tinges of self centeredness, if not a core of it. If an ethical system requires that another be immoral for my advancement, or if moral actions can entail the sacrificing of other, then what sorts of ends can these systems lead to? Incomplete ones at best and heinous ones at worst.
Derek:But the morality of being is different. The means are always to seek the good of other and to always look outside of self. Now that may sound suicidal and masochistic and like something which fails to uphold one's own ontological being. But in a world of 8,000,000,000 people, would it be better if I alone looked out for myself as everyone looked out for themselves? Would my being be better preserved if I knew that I and everyone else had 7,000,000,000, 999,999,999,999 other human beings looking out for each of us?
Derek:The means of being ethics lead to ends which are concomitant with them, and these ends are beautiful. When the means are always others focused and the ends one get are conducive to the preservation of others, And in the community, every individual is an other to everyone else. It's time to wrap this up. Conclusion. I've remained a Christian for many reasons, One of which is because of the moral argument.
Derek:I see no naturalistic moral alternative to Christianity, which isn't steeped in arbitrariness or egoism. And it doesn't mean those moral systems are wrong. It just means that if we all get to make up systems arbitrarily, which suit ourselves the best, then the Christian one does that for me. Believing that morality is arbitrary and egoistic would be, for me, like believing that love, personhood, or the will were all the results of mechanistic processes. It may be true, but I'd go on living in the fantasy that they weren't, just like most other people, atheists included.
Derek:And that's exactly what I see most moral philosophies doing. They use words like altruism as if they're beautiful, other centered actions. Yet on their systems, those altruistic actions are steeped in egoistic intent. For the sake of humanity's mental health and therefore survival, thank the God who doesn't exist that the vast majority of humanity has embraced illusion and ignorance rather than logical moral consistency. I, however, think that there is a truth which is more compelling, fulfilling, and beautiful than this.
Derek:There is a creator, God, who splits the horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and is himself the source of meaning, purpose, and goodness. Out of himself, he created beings infused with purpose and goodness and who lived in relation to God. But these humans withdrew from God to embrace the nothingness which once existed and lost their purpose and goodness, being separated from God. Yet God and his infinite love and goodness restored humanity by showing them what a true human was like and by providing a way for humanity to reconnect with their source of life, purpose, and goodness. It is in this that our morality is grounded, and in this that we are able to make sense of a word of words like altruism.
Derek:God is an eternally triune relational God, a God of other, and we are made in his image. Having already spent a great deal of space discussing my arguments, I don't wanna take up much more space in in this discussion. Nevertheless, this whole thought process arose in the context of a discussion on Christian anarchism, so I I want to at least begin to tie this in with that, even if it isn't expounded on until later. What is the resurrection in Christianity to do with anarchism, and can't we just expand ecumenicism to universalism in the anarchist community? Wouldn't that be more inclusive?
Derek:On its face, I think it makes sense that Christianity's fine line of distinction between those inside the fold and those outside the fold can be an othering event, an event where we create an out group. The crusades, inquisitions, and numerous persecutions throughout the ages show us that Christians can very easily use religion to other those outside the individuals, deemed to be in the fold of God. But I'd argue that if true Christian morality were advocated, it would be more inclusive than being a Unitarian, a group which is perhaps viewed as being the most seemingly inclusivist group to exist in Christianity. A Unitarian can embrace any of the moral theories we mentioned in this article, whether that's virtue ethics, consequentialism, or some deontological system. Those systems are certainly systems which are othering systems with some othering more than some other's other.
Derek:So a Unitarian system which embraces othering systems seems exclusivist already. A Unitarian system would also deny the necessity of the resurrection. But as we've seen, the resurrection in Theosis gets us so much more and grounds our ability to uncompromisingly look beyond ourselves to focus on other. So while Unitarian ideology might have the appearance of a broader, of broader borders since it acts as though it's not exclusive, it includes othering ideologies and excludes most or any exclusivist truth claims. Unitarianism ends up being a very othering religion in that sense, where there really isn't a purpose other than to avoid thinking one has a corner on the market of purpose and morality.
Derek:But a Christianity which embraces a morality of being is different. While the margins of the immediate Christian community might be exclusivist and small during the community meeting, the focus is on other, and the desire is to include other. It's exactly why you get that famous quote by emperor Julian, which says, it's a scandal that there's not a single Jew who's a beggar and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor, but for ours as well, while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them. Julian was right. Christianity is an exclusive community, not in the sense that it excludes others from it, but in the sense that it requires one to exclude self, or as Jesus says, to die to self for entry.
Derek:It requires a life where there's a daily dying to self. Entry into the specific Christian body should exclude those who exclude others so that those within the church can go outside of their walls to love and win those people over to the promise of true being, both ontological and metaphysical being. By being an exclusivist community, the church is supposed to be able to preserve its integrity and the image that it is others focused, which makes other people want to come in and makes the exclusive community larger and more able to help those outside of its walls. A desire for others to become like us and like our group can be a good thing, provided we know the telos of the beings we are, are or seek to become. We don't wanna include those in our church who have not yet seen the need to die to self.
Derek:For them, they would eat from the tree of life and go on thinking they were alive when they were, in reality, the living dead. Our Christian community doesn't want to sear the consciences and give false hope to those who think they have heard the words of life when they are still adulterers whose mistress is the pride of life. It is only by excluding others from our immediate community that we can have the hope of one day including them as a result of our being a living sacrifice poured out for them. A great example of this exclusivist inclusivity may be the medical community. To be a doctor is an exclusive position which requires qualifications and vetting.
Derek:But unlike the KKK, nations, or other groups which exclude based on arbitrary values and self focus, the exclusivism of the medical community is done not to keep others on the outside, but so that those on the outside may be best helped rather than harmed in the administration of treatment. Doctors are the health of the world in a similar way that the author to the letter of Diognetus declares Christians to be the soul of the world. The Christian community ought to be a salt and light, not mere preserved preservatives and guides, but elements which also add flavor and beauty to the world. We've tried inclusivity, which is called sacralism. Sacralism has spent the last 1500 years of church history polluting the soul, dimming the light, and diminishing the saltiness of Christianity.
Derek:In this way, we can see that when the church becomes fully inclusive without discretion, it actually becomes harmful rather than beneficial. Just as we don't want the medical community to be all inclusive, neither do we want Christianity to be all inclusive. It's only by excluding some in the liturgy and community that Christianity can move out to love and seek the benefit of those who refuse to submit to self sacrifice. Now whether Christianity in name has done this well or not is beside the point. The point is that true Christianity looks like this and ought to pursue such morality.
Derek:The same should be true of anarchists who consider themselves Christians. Christian anarchist morality is beautiful in its tendency to emphasize self sacrifice and other. It's beautiful in its willingness to take on consequences for a refusal to compromise with evil. Yet without the resurrection and without a Christian perspective, there's little to no moral foundation or meaning in doing such things. That means that as a Christian anarchist, I wanna stick to my guns or my peace signs and belabor the resurrection and the Christian perspective.
Derek:Not because I want to exclude others or draw lines and boxes, but because it's the only way to include everybody. It's the only way to provide hope. It's the only way to ground unswerving morality. And because it's true, I will continue to love all people, yet it's because I love them that I won't swerve from the truth. By being exclusive to that which is true, I'm seeking the good of others and the inclusion of all.
Derek:That's all for now. So peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and Kingdom Living.