Do Moral Values change over time?

It is often claimed that moral values change greatly over time as societies “advance”. For instance, it is often claimed that modern societies are morally superior for not killing witches or shunning homosexuals. But perhaps what this apparent progress actually shows is that while we are scientifically superior, we may actually be morally similar, to ancient societies. Surprisingly similar moral values often underlie very different historical manifestations of morality. How can this be so? It seems to me that when we combine traditional moral values with increasing scientific knowledge, we actually get changes in cultural practices that are more just and compassionate. Let me unpack this with some thought experiments:

Hate is a Policy, not a Feeling

We tend to think of things like hate and love as feelings: They happen when we "feel" them, or experience them inside ourselves, even if unexpressed in outward action. But it seems to me that they rather are motivations that lead to concrete actions. Hate is not so much judged by a Likert Scale of 0 (no feeling of hate) to 5 (strong feeling of hate). Hate is judged by the outward actions and attitudes it manifests in social interactions. 

Doing what Jesus did

Jesus said... "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:9-12)

There are as many different ways of interpreting Jesus' life as there are interpreters, and the myriad of lenses used in looking at Jesus can be overwhelming. We can analyze him using sociological, historical, literary, ethical, mystical, and theological lenses. And within the theological lenses we can look at him from Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, and dozens of other perspectives.

And yet, in the midst of a bewildering variety of ways of seeing Jesus Christ, our central concern in living as a Christian is (or at least should be) to live "in Christ": To imitate, emulate, and seek to embody Christ in such a way that we can say with Saint Paul "it is no longer I that lives, but Christ lives in me" (Galatians 2.20). So what kind of lens can we use to view Jesus that most effectively helps us imitate Christ and live in Christ?

On Atheist Heroes and the possibility of Altruism

Recently, a friend of mine started a discussion about whether acts of pure altruism are possible. Altruism is defined in my dictionary as “the practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”. Philosophically, Altruism can only exist if there is a category of action which creates benefit for others, while creating no benefit (or even a detriment) to self. 

On Two Kinds of Bible Readers

Two kinds of Bible readers are invincibly ignorant, and have no idea how to understand what the Bible says, because they cannot see past their own ideology. The first kind are those religious fundamentalists who cherry pick the Bible's commands to justify their own ideology. The second kind are secular fundamentalists who cherry pick the Bible's absurdities to justify their own desire for the Bible to say nothing at all. Only those who sit with the Bible, listening as one might listen to a grandparent telling old family stories of joy and woe, are able to discern the deep currents of God at work in the messiness of history and culture. Religious fundamentalists present nice, clean, sanitary, pre-packaged answers to all of life's questions, while secular fundamentalists present self-satisfied, shallow, privileged satire of cultures and texts they will never comprehend. Beyond the mirror image fundamentalisms of left and right is a deeper way of discerning a trajectory in Scripture which leads to life, love, and justice. What Martin Luther King said about history is true of Scripture as well: The moral arc of history is long (and messy), but it trends toward justice.

Metaphysics and Moral Value

Thus spake Nietzsche: Courageous enough to admit what morality without metaphysics entails.

One of the fundamental claims of most forms of religion is that Metaphysics-- the Ultimate Reality that grounds and upholds physical reality-- is somehow necessary for moral values to really exist. The claim is often made that without Metaphysics, moral statements become mere statements of personal preference. This is a hard claim for many to understand, so I wrote this to help.

Is God necessary for Adult Morality?

The Paper Sack Kant could not write himself out of.

It is with quite some regularity that I read or hear a well meaning Christian say "If you don't have God, then anything is permitted! God is necessary as a basis of morality!" This quote is often attributed to Dostoyevsky  in "The Brothers Karamazov", although he never exactly wrote it. Rather, it is a helpful summary of the moral outlook of Ivan Karamazov in the early chapters of the book.

Now, as a Christian I think that positing an Infinite Source of Love at the core of the Universe-- the Triune God-- is the most satisfying metaphysical grounding for why altruistic Love and Compassion are essentially good. And furthermore, I find it incredibly instructive to posit that this Love became incarnate in a particular life, so we could see this Love embodied and exemplified.

An Offensive Sermon

Bansky's family picnic: As offensive as Jesus' meals, for the opposite reasons.

For Third Advent, Year A. Based on Luke 1:46-55 (the Magnificat), James 5:7-10, and Matthew 11:2-11.

And Jesus said "Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me." To which someone in the crowd immediately mumbled under their breath "Who does this guy think he is anyway? The Son of God?"

Today I want to deliver an offensive sermon. No, not in the sense that I want to offend you. I don't want to offend anyone here. And if you are offended by what I say today, please, blame it on Fr. Chuck. But, instead of being offensive myself, I want to talk about the kinds of things that offend US, and what on earth people could possibly find offensive about JESUS.

Faith and Hope and the Tightrope of Love

Love is dangerous, risky, and infinitely costly to the self. Precisely because it is the giving of self away to the Other, for the Other, in the Other. Why should we give ourselves away in this manner? Why is Love worth the risk? Why would it not be better to act in self-interest, rather than loose yourself in what may in the end be a futile effort?

Is there a good reason we should sing with the Song of Solomon:

"Love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot sweep it away. If one were to give all the wealth of one’s house for love, it would be utterly scorned." [Song 8.6-7]

The Golden Rule across cultures

Ummm. Not THAT Golden Rule.

The following are some lecture notes for a discussion on "The Golden Rule" as Jesus presents it in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). In this lecture, I am trying to connect the ethics of Jesus with the central concerns of other world cultures:

Most cultures and religions have ethical systems that, at their core, are based on an idea of equality and reciprocity. This idea was first delivered to me in earnest by CS Lewis in his little book "The Abolition of Man". In the appendix, Lewis put a cross cultural sampling of moral teachings he labelled "The Tao" (a Chinese word meaning "The Way" or more appropriately "The Way to be Good or Moral"). The central section of "The Tao" for me was what Lewis calls "The Law of Reciprocity", which is often better known as "The Golden Rule".

Ethics precedes Metaphysics and constitutes Epistemology

The following mediation uses quite a bit of philosophical jargon. It is based on two propositions I have been playing with for a while in my mind, which seek to provide a relation between three major area of philosophy: Ethics (how we act), Metaphysics (what we know about Ultimate Reality), and Epistemology (how we know). I'm not entirely sure what I think about these propositions, or how they relate to my theology as a whole. And the only way to figure it out is to write it out. So, here is attempt #1.

Proposition 1: Ethics precedes Metaphysics and constitutes Epistemology.

Proposition 2: We choose therefore we are, and our choices shape how and what we can know.

We greet God in the Face of "The Other"

Over the past couple of years I have been thinking about how to integrate some of the major themes of postmodern ethical theory into a genuinely Trinitarian, Incarnational worldview. Although I know whole forests of trees have been cut down to make books which (over)analyze these concepts, I would like to put forward some short and sweet recommendations about how to integrate these concepts into a Classically Christian spirituality.

My meditation will center around concepts of welcome, embrace, inclusion, tolerance, difference, "other"-ness (le autre), and "the face of the other" as popularized by thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Jack Caputo, and Emmanuel Lévinas, and expanded and critiqued by theorists like Slavoj Žižek.

Religious Not Spiritual

I'm not entirely sure why I forgot to post this on my blog in January when I made this video. But, nevertheless, here it is.

This is a response to the "Why I hate religion but love Jesus" video by Jefferson Bethke. There are many things I agree with him on, and I probably would have done a similar video (had I the skills and production abilities he does) 15 years ago. But I have been walking with Jesus for a while now, and this is where I am at on my journey now.

Here are the lyrics and some scriptures for further study.

Conservatively Progressive, Radically Traditional and Liberally Creedal

The "dancing saints" icon at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church is a great visual example of Creedal theology combined with a radical social vision.

This week Ross Douthat at the NY Times wrote an article asking whether Liberal Christianity can be saved. His article basically tied radical social decisions (such as ordination of transgender persons and blessings of gay and lesbian unions) to doctrinal sellout (such as liberals supposedly being syncretist at worst, and bland at best). And he then tied doctrinal sellout with numerical decline, in such a way that numerical decline is the primary indicator of whether a church body is being unfaithful to Jesus Christ by accommodating to culture (while, conversely, numerical increase is the primary indicator of faithfulness).

What does Christ have to offer a post-Christian world?

This is a reflection on the Pew research which shows a diminishment of global Christian population share from 35% in 1910 and 32% in 2010. At first, if one looks at raw numbers, it appears as if Christianity is growing like crazy. This is because there were only 612 million Christians in 1910, but there are now 2.18 billion: An apparent increase of 353% in 100 years! However, in that same time world population has increased 383% from 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010.

This is interesting because Christianity is supposed to be a growth religion- a missionary religion- not a maintenence religion. This stat does not seem problematic until one factors this lack of statistical increase compared to actual population growth. It shows that even though more total people are Christians, the message and vitality of Christianity is slipping as a proportion of culture as a whole.

See the Pew Religion research stats here: http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-worlds-christian-population.aspx?src=prc-headline

Even if one juxtaposes the diminution of Christian dominance in Europe and the USA with the rapid growth of Christianity in Asia and Africa, the problem still stands. For on one hand: What culture has not been evangelized more, and in more ways, than the USA? And yet, the "market share" of Christianity here has STILL decreased from well over 90% in 1900 to just under 80% today.

Is Every Single Person a Child of God?

An Essay Exploring the Universal Fatherhood of God in its Implications for our Mission as Followers of Jesus Christ.

In the last few years, I have stumbled across a major moral problem among people who are dedicated, sincere, authentic followers of Jesus Christ. And this problem is a two-tier moral standard between how we treat those who are "in" and those who are "out" of the Christian fold.

And this problem revolves around the concept of who God is a Father to, and who are "children of God". There is one standard applied to Christians who are "God's children": The standard of unconditional, unselfish, sacrificial Love (cf. 1Corinthians 13). For those who are "in" the Christian fold, we should spare no effort or expense in helping them, and protecting them, and treating them with dignity.

Always Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing

A Sermon For Year C, Easter 5
Copyright © 2010 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on John 13:31-35, Acts 11:1-18 and Rev. 21:1-6

The duty of every good pastor is to clearly and concisely teach and preach what God desires for our lives: To teach it clearly, in such a way that anyone can understand; To preach it concisely, in such a way that anyone can remember.

And although I feel I have been very clear about what I have taught you these last four years at Canterbury, I fear I have not been very concise. Our two hour Bible studies, while deep and intense and even hilarious, desperately resist being put into a "nutshell".

And now we are coming to the end of one Journey of Ministry, and we are beginning another. But before I leave, I want to give you the nutshell. The big picture. The cliff notes of what this has all been about.

A CROWN FOR A KING

A Sermon For Year A, Passion Sunday
Copyright © 2008 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Matthew 26:69-27:54

Tonight I would like us to take a mental tour- a tour with our imagination- of the day that Jesus was condemned... The day that Jesus was finally "crowned" as a King.

A perfect life. Perfect love. He healed and delivered all who trusted in Him. The blind see. The crippled walk. The hungry are fed. And now this...

Jesus, eyes swollen, face bruised, body beaten, stands before crooked judges after becoming a victim of police brutality...

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus:

"Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?"

Look into the narrow eyes of the high priest. Can you see the hate? Can you see the judgment? Can you see the rage?

CHRISTARCHY

A Sermon For Christ the King Sunday, Year C

Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Jeremiah 23:1-6, Colossians 1:11-20, Luke 23:35-43

Not so long ago, in a suburb not so far away, there lived skater-punk, who rode around on his well worn skateboard, with hair in his eyes, a concert t-shirt, ripped up jeans, half destroyed converse shoes, and something between a smirk and a sneer constantly glued on his face.

And if you looked close at his skateboard, or his shoes, or his jeans, or his notebooks, or the back of his hand, you would see scrawled a circle with an "A" in the middle of it:

The international punk rock sign for ANARCHY.

INTOLERANT ABOUT HOSPITALITY

A Sermon For Year C Proper 17
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Hebrews 13:1-8 and Luke 14:1-14

SERMON: Did you ever watch cartoons on TV when you were a kid? How about last night on cartoon network?

I loved cartoons. Every afternoon in third and fourth grade I would race home after school to watch my all-time favorite cartoon series: G.I. Joe- a REAL American Hero!

Like most kids growing up in Arkansas at the time, I loved guns, tanks, bombs, and explosions. And G.I. Joe supplied that yearning with an endless conflict between "the good guys", and bland, non-descript, faceless enemy called Cobra.

They were always locked in a properly-neutered, politically-correct, no-one-ever-really-dies war which never seemed to end… but which did seem to spawn the production of really cool gadgets and playsets, which my dad would pay hundreds of dollars to buy.

Looking back, it was kind of the macho equivalent of "Barbie Dolls".