Jesus’ formula for discerning Good from Evil

Among the many things John’s Gospel teaches is a concise formula to discern Good from Evil. John records Jesus as saying:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10:10 NRSV)

In Greek it reads: ὁ κλέπτης οὐκ ἔρχεται εἰ μὴ ἵνα κλέψῃ καὶ θύσῃ καὶ ἀπολέσῃ· ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν.

And so I would paraphrase it: The thief only comes for theft, murder, and destruction. I have come that they may not only survive, but thrive. 

In the first sentence, Jesus lays out what is evil, anti-life, anti-Christ, and anti-God. In the second sentence, Jesus lays out what is good, enhances life, embodies Christ, and glorifies God. 

The Persistence of the Fact/Value Distinction

I have encountered several attempts to derive moral values from empirical observation, from "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by angry atheist Sam Harris, to the Lobster hierarchies of neoconservative hero Jordan Peterson. Most of these attempts revolve around the mundane rhetorical strategy of "we observed these behaviors consistently in nature, which means they must be ethically normative for humans". Which of course is the very definition of the naturalistic fallacy in logic. Furthermore, most of the attempts to collapse the fact/value distinction depend on a metaphysics of eliminative materialism, while sneaking in a transcendent value for “life” or “actualization” without acknowledging it. 

For instance, the argument is often made that “ought” is simply a function of “could”, and “could” is simply a function of “is”. The way things are implies certain possibilities about how they could be, when extended through a causal chain of events. “Ought” simply takes one or more of these potential states and designates it as preferable to other potential states. Generally, the preferable states are those that maximize life and health and creative capacity. Why are these states preferable? Because in evolutionary biology we see that creatures seek to maximize survival through adaptation, therefore the universal drive to maximize life is something like an empirical fact. Thus the “ought” of maximizing life is dissolved into the “is” of evolutionary observation. 

But notice the transcendent value that has been assumed and snuck in: That life ought to be preserved and maximized. Why? 

Consistent Life Ethics and the Conundrum of Abortion

Recently, someone asked me what the Christian view on abortion is, since they find themselves uncomfortable with both extreme "pro-choice" and dogmatic "pro-life" views which are always at war in our culture. I realized I have never written anything specifically on abortion, so here I would like to set out the ethics of abortion in 3000 words or less. Much more can and should be said, but I think this is a kind of limit for quick reading (or a medium length sermon). So please excuse the points I make which could be elaborated on or debated.

The Abolition of Man after a decade (or more)

Tonight I re-read CS Lewis’ “Abolition of Man” for the first time in over a decade. I now realize that, just as “Mere Christianity” has implicitly shaped my fundamental assumptions in theology and epistemology, so also “Abolition” has shaped my fundamental assumptions in ethics and education. For instance:

A Provocation on the Golden Rule

How a person treats their opponents is how they will treat their friends. 

How a nation treats its enemies is how it will treat its citizens. 

People will do to us as we have done to others. 

Therefore, it is not only in the interest of Divine Love, but also in the interest of self preservation, to do to others as we would want them to do to us. 

Begin with the End in mind?

To begin with the end in mind: This was an ideal of Christian ethics long before it was a catch phrase for design thinking, an axiom of corporate management culture, or a technique for scientific application. Although many Christians have forgotten this, much to our detriment and the world’s. 

We are all ethical hypocrites

I just read yet another meme where self-assured, self-satisfied, secular skeptics were mocking folks who wrangle over the ethical interpretation of the Bible. They snidely ask: Who has authority to interpret? What gives people the right to take some passages “literally” and other passages “symbolically”? And I get the snide mockery: Religion has excluded a lot of people; Religion is rife with hypocrisy; Religion is full of self-contradictions. I get it. But let's unpack this a bit more...

A Provocation about Postmodern Thought

Theologian Ted Peters makes a distinction between two trends in postmodernism in his book “God: The World’s Future”. The first trend is toward holistic postmodernism, in which we recognize the immense diversity present in the natural and social worlds we inhabit, and we seek to find an organic unity within which they all inhere, which celebrates all our unique and distinct contributions to the whole, without distorting, denying, or doing violence to any of those distinctions. The second trend is toward deconstructive postmodernism, which disbelieves all metanarratives, distrusts all over-arching structures, and in general denies all absolute and objective claims about Reality. However...

The Rise of Homo Consumerensis

I’ve been pondering a feeling I have but cannot quite put into precise words. But it seems like our culture has less capacity, and desire, to think about and discuss ideas. Everything has turned into a politics of the putdown, and diatribes of denigration. In the late 90's to early 00's, I remember having lively discussions online and in real life about theological and philosophical topics with regular folks: From predestination, to the nature of God, to acceptance of LGBT persons, to capital punishment, to what goes on in the Sacrament.

The Enduring Challenge of Nietzsche

When teaching Introduction to Philosophy, we often end with a discussion of the "Masters of Suspicion": Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. These thinkers mark the so-called "Interpretive Turn" (or "Hermeneutic Turn") into what is often called "Postmodern" Philosophy*. What this means is that ideas and beliefs are no longer what they seem to be about, but must be interpreted to see what values or commitments are REALLY motivating these convictions. All three of these "Masters of Suspicion" insisted that surface readings of our ideologies-- ideas about God, ethics, beauty, social order-- missed the true deep intent of the discussion. The deep, structural insight is this: Our ideas are always about something other than what we represent them as:

A Provocation on the Humanist God

At this stage in history I feel the need to qualify the statement “I believe in God” with what KIND of God I believe in. It is no longer enough to consider God as merely the singular Divine Source and Destiny of all worlds, the Ultimate Reality in which all beings inhere, and Supreme Value toward which all beings are drawn. Because that template of God is used to support radically different visions of God’s character. For many God is at worst hateful and meddling (as in the God of so many Brands of angry Fundamentalism), and at best apathetic and neglectful (as in so many rehashed versions of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism). 

Rather, I see God in and through Jesus Christ, and ONLY in and through Jesus Christ. And the God I see in Jesus is a thoroughly HUMANISTIC God, because God became thoroughly HUMAN in Jesus. Jesus reveals God’s chief concern is humans, or more precisely, persons made in God’s image (since these are the only fully sentient, metacognitive, communicative persons we find on this particular planet). God wants persons, each and every one of them, to not only survive, but thrive, and have the opportunity to grow into the fullness of the Divine Potential embodied in them. 

Full human flourishing for every human life: This is what God wants for us, and what God has shown us, in Jesus Christ. Full freedom. Full capacity. Full healing. Full knowledge. Full bellies. Full minds. Full hearts. Abundant life for all humanity. As Irenaeus said: "The Glory of God is humanity fully alive!" This is the goal of the Humanist God, because Jesus is God incarnate in a Human life. We may need to widen this thesis to include other persons, once we discover or create other kinds of persons, who are also made in God’s image (whether Aliens or Artificial Intelligences or Genetically engineered beings). But for the last 10,000 years, it seems we are having a hard enough time grasping how much God loves all of humanity. So for now, let us start with humanity, and focus our attention on Jesus Christ, the Humanist God. 

A Provocation on Polytheism

I used to think polytheism was ludicrous. But if I didn't know better, I would think that old gods with names like Mars and Mammon, Eros and Eris, Thanatos and Dionysios, are actually orchestrating events in our society. What is more, it seems like they are all perfectly willing to dress up as Jesus of Nazareth, so long as we worship and sacrifice to the values they embody.

The Trajectory we follow in interpreting Scripture

For the last several years, I have been tweaking a Hebrew and Greek daily Scripture reading system, with a lectionary for reading through the English Bible every year and a half. If you are interested in viewing or using it, a PDF is available HERE. 

What is of interest here is that, in the introduction to this reader (pages 2-3), I most clearly lay out how I interpret Scripture, and the main concerns I pay attention to when seeking to understand what God has revealed to us through Scripture. I have written elsewhere about how I apply the Biblical laws to our ethical life, and how Scriptural difficulties are worked out when we see Scripture as a process of Developmental Revelation, which is on a trajectory that is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. In this understanding, to use words spoken by Martin Luther King Jr.: The Moral Arc of History (and Scripture) is long, but it trends toward Justice. This view has been shaped by voices as diverse as CS Lewis (in terms of overall narrative development of History), NT Wright (in terms of looking at the Old Testament from the perspective of the New Testament), Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (in his work on confronting violence in the Torah). 

When Goodness is repellant and Evil is seductive

I just saw Venom, and along with it a preview for Captain Marvel. Very enjoyable movie, and interesting preview. But I realized something that has always struck me as hollow about the Marvel Universe, and most other movie universes* from DC to Star Wars to Harry Potter to Indiana Jones. That is this: Evil is not evil until it is truly seductive, and Good is not good unless it is truly repellant. 

Let me explain. 

The Trinity grounds Inclusion

To be inclusive, one must have something or someone to include people into. And for that inclusion to be “good” we must include people into something that brings abundant life and full human flourishing. It is not enough to include people into communities or families. Street gangs, prisons, cartels, and Nazis all form strong communities. We must ask what greater good— what God— is served by those communities, and if that God is worthy of worship. That God could be racial identity, profit making, power acquisition, or even some version of “God” itself. But how do you define the God you include people into? 

Religion and Incarnation, Exclusivism and Inclusivism

In this short essay, I would like to fill out a few aspects of what it means to have an inclusivist vision of religions in relation to Jesus Christ, rather than an exclusivist or pluralist vision of religions. If these terms are new to you, or you wonder how I mean these terms, I have a helpful chart here. As our starting point to dive in, I want to begin with one of the unique and central images of Christian Faith: The idea that Christians make up "The Body of Christ".

Monism and Dualism, Metaphysics and Ethics

Contrary to persistent misperceptions: 

Metaphysical dualism implies Ethical monism. 

Metaphysical monism implies Ethical dualism. 

A CHART: Two Ways of Interpreting Torah

Many times each year, both in the classroom and online, I get into discussions about how to interpret and apply Biblical laws, especially those that are found in the Hebrew Torah (the first five books of the "Old Testament": Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). I do not have the time or space here to get into a complete theology of how to interpret the Old Testament from a Christian point of view. I have written elsewhere that Scriptural difficulties are worked out when we see Scripture as a process of Developmental Revelation, which is on a trajectory that is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. In this understanding, to use words spoken by Martin Luther King Jr.: The Moral Arc of History (and Scripture) is long, but it trends toward Justice. This view has been shaped by voices as diverse as CS Lewis (in terms of overall narrative development of History), Walter Brueggemann (in terms of looking at the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the Prophets), NT Wright (in terms of looking at the Old Testament from the perspective of the New Testament), Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (in his work on confronting violence in the Torah), and Roy Heller (my Hebrew Bible prof in Seminary). 

On subtle whoring and Kierkegaard

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were listening to an 80's station, when they played an awful song from the 80's that I had never heard before. Except, it was not "turn-the-station" awful, but rather "a-trainwreck-you-can't-not-look-at" awful. That song is the immortal "I've never been to me" by the singer Charlene.

Following Jesus without God?

As many who read this blog know, I am a Christian priest who serves as a school chaplain and head of religious studies at an Episcopal Middle and Upper School (grades 6-12). My position shares a great many commonalities with being a parish priest. For instance, I am the "village vicar" and pastoral presence for nearly 600 students and staff, and their families as well. But there are significant differences too. Chief among them is the fact that my parish not only includes Episcopal Christians, but also Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants of every stripe, and every variety from Nominal to Committed to Conservative to Liberal. But not only does it include a broad spectrum of Christians, but my parish includes Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, and many who Secular and even Atheist.