CONSEQUENCES FOR LIVING
Human Responsibility
Fundamental human nature in the biblical view is such that each person is in relation, that everyone lives in a real and changing world, that everyone has a significant capacity to make genuine decisions, and that individuals are responsible for their actions. No one is the impotent victim of time; each can make a range of choices and act on them without God's control. Decision implies standards by which choices are made along with responsibility and accountability, in other words ethics(1) or morality. The values inherent in biblical morality are set against the backdrop of history: because individuals are created as free agents, they have power to influence the conditions of the natural world; they can move history. But history is not endless or unintentional; it is the product of God's will, a deliberate act with a definite purpose. Cherbonnier explains the significance of the biblical conception of time:
The Bible has simply never heard that time, as distinct from many of the things that happen in time, is something to be redeemed from. When it speaks of ultimate fulfillment, it uses definitely temporal terms: "life everlasting," "world without end." The phrase "eternal life" means, in the original Greek, not a timeless state, but "the life of the age to come."(2)
Consequently, it is the responsibility of human beings as participating caretakers of history to discover God’s intentions for humanity and to mold human action to match that purpose. Morality as an abstraction, then, involves a judgment on how well that responsibility has been met. Biblical religion maintains that individuals and communities can be held accountable for their chosen behaviors. Biblically speaking, the moral person is open to the truth, hears the truth, comes to grips with it, and then acts consistently to "live the truth."
Many faithful individuals and communities have turned to the words of the Bible for moral solutions, for guidance about the consequences for living their faith authentically. However, numerous value-laden issues facing post-biblical humanity were not known to the biblical writers - for example, ought to do and ought not to do problems resulting from modern science and technology. Moreover, consistency on ethical issues among biblical authors is simply not available. As one scholar notes:
Biblical ethics is unyieldingly diverse. The Bible contains many books, and more traditions, each addressed in a specific cultural and social context to a particular community facing concrete questions of moral conduct and character. Biblical ethics does not provide an autonomous and timeless and coherent set of rules; it provides an account of the work and will of the one God, and it evokes the creative and faithful response of those who would be God's people. The one God of scripture assures the unity of biblical ethics, but there is no simple (italics ours) unitive under standing even of that one God or of that one God's will. To force biblical ethics into a timeless, systematic unity is to impoverish it.(3)
(1) "Ethics" and "morality" (and their variations) are used interchangeably in this text.
(2) Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, p. 80. [See Cherbonnier subsite.]
(3) A. D. Verhey, "Biblical Ethics," The Oxford Companion To The Bible, ed. by B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (New York: Oxford, 1993), p. 202.
Integrating Life Forces
The word "religion" appears nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no such word in biblical Hebrew. In the New Testament the Greek word often translated "religion" is used only about a dozen times and refers rather narrowly to patterns of worship, duties to God, or to allegiance to the Faith. Why is there little or no "religion" in the Bible? One biblical scholar has commented:
The infrequent use of "religion" in the Bible is due to the fact that the concept of "religion" is itself alien to the core of biblical thought. The basic meaning of faith to the Hebrew is the concrete response of the whole man to God's call and obedience to his command, not intellectual acceptance of a body of truth or even correct observance of special cultic acts.(4)
Each moment of daily living in a covenant relationship(5) with the sovereign of creation was the
(4) F. D. Gealy, "Religion," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. R-Z, p. 32.
(5) Covenant is "one of the fundamental theological motifs of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. ... In general, covenant signifies a relationship based on commitment, which includes both promises and obligations and which has the quality of reliability and durability. The relationship is usually sealed by a rite - for example, an oath, sacred meal, blood sacrifice... - which makes it binding. ... Covenant expresses a novel element of the religion of ancient Israel: the people are bound in relationship to the one God, Yahweh, who makes an exclusive ('jealous') claim upon their loyalty in worship and social life. ... In the Pentateuch, however, primary emphasis is given to God's covenant with the Israelite people, portrayed in the migration of Abraham and Sarah in response to the divine promise (Gen. 11.31-12.7) and the special relationship between God and their descendants (Gen 15.1-21; 17.1-22). In the biblical narrative, the covenant with Israel's ancestors is the prelude to the crucial events of the Exodus and the Mosaic covenant at Sinai... ...all of God's covenants with Israel include divine promises, as well as human obligations, though they differ as to which is emphasized.” [from "Covenant" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993), pp. 138f.] The evolution of "Covenant" may be studied in various biblical commentaries and dictionaries. [See “Contracts and Covenants” and “Covenants with Abram and Us” in the Reflections subsite.]
“The Mosaic covenant, for instance, stresses
the contingency of human freedom and the precarious openness of the future,
while the "everlasting covenant" (whether Abrahamic or Davidic) stresses the
unconditional commitment of God, which assures continuity into the future
despite human fallibility. The Davidic covenant, which stresses the
cosmological symbolism of temple and kingship, reaches beyond the historical
axis of the Mosaic covenant into the dimension of Yahweh’s cosmic kingship
and therefore opens the way for a theology of cosmic creation and the inclusion
of all peoples in the Kingdom of God. And the Priestly perspective, in its own
way, wrestles with the polarity of divine transcendence and immanence by
presenting a vision of the Holy God, the Creator of heaven and earth and the
sovereign of all peoples, who graciously chooses to tabernacle in the midst of
a worshiping people.
“Each of these patterns presents a theologically
indispensable witness, for it nuances the presence of the Holy God in the world
differently. The interaction of these traditions with one another during the
ongoing pilgrimage of the people, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and
within the context of the cultus, provides that knowledge of the Holy God, who
both transcends and is involved in the human world, that is the ground of
salvation and obligation. Add to this the witness of Israelite wisdom, which
was probably at home originally in royal covenant theology but provided a
powerful ferment in all aspects of Israelite thought and worship from the
first. The total result for biblical theology is that Israelite traditions in
all their diversity and even their dissonance bear witness to the God by whose
word the heavens were made and whose counsel brings the nations to nought, a
theme celebrated with hymnic praise in Psalm 33.” [B. W. Anderson,
“Biblical Theology and Sociological Interpretation,” Theology
Today, Vol. 42, No. 3, October, 1985 (at
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1985/v42-3-article2.htm)]
plan for the Hebrew people. Their commitments to God and to each other included every involvement at home, at work, and in the community, all unified by private prayer or corporate worship.
Thus, one of the key elements of biblical philosophy is the importance of action, verbal and physical. It is the framework for gathering knowledge of God, understanding the Creator’s actions in the world, and hearing God’s word. The same condition is true for human beings; it is a pattern of integrated life that is vital to the biblical approach. Nothing is splintered or compartmentalized. Knowledge, action, and morality work together in human existence; they each play a role in bringing mankind to fellowship with God. What defines morality for biblical religion, therefore, is not so much the isolated codes on any given action, but how well one balances the variables in life while keeping them in harmony within particular circumstances. To clarify this, one can say that for a person to hear the word of God and then not to act is immoral. It cannot be justified purely on the basis of abstract acceptance, because such a justification is incomplete. The weight of biblical morality requires that each person and community make the transition from the theoretical to the practical, that religious knowledge be brought to bear on everyday life, and that everyone give it the strength and vitality of their own actions. This is what is meant by an integration of life forces, and it is a consistent theme in biblical religion to keep concerns of God and humanity grounded firmly in the reality of this world. In response to many “spiritualities” at odds with the Bible, this writer commented elsewhere:
Christian Spirituality is consciously living out one’s baptism every moment of each day whether at prayer, work, or leisure. Like Christ, we do not need to strain, anguish, complicate, take additional vows, learn meditative techniques or secure inner glows to live spiritually as his disciples. Rather, we pray His prayer, break his bread, sip his wine, discover the Word beneath the words of Scripture, read the morning paper, have our meals, do the dishes, attend to other personal needs, work (with all its joys and battles), play, serve others as we can, grow in our family relationships (with their ups and downs), take out the dog, and rest.(6)
Persons in Relation
A cardinal virtue in biblical philosophy is that each person ought to maintain the trust of God and of his fellow mortals. The fabric of biblical morality is strongly tied to the ideal of truth. The gift of freedom was an act of trust by God, and this is indicative of the repeated references to the Creator as a God of love and compassion. In essence, it implies that the biblical view is a blend of the practical and the emotional. It does not require anyone to deny natural passions, as the perennial mystic might, or that he minimize or sever all his contacts with other persons. On the contrary, biblical religion adheres to the ideal of community in which each person not only fulfills his individual responsibility, but acts to help others meet their own demands. At the very least, the biblical view requires people to be conscious of the condition of those around them, and to take into account the others' needs; everyone is always a person in relation to others as well as to God.
(6) in Episcopal Life (February 1997, page 18) [See also “Spirituality in the Ordinary” and “Spirituality vs. God’s Word” in the Reflections subsite.]
Community, then, is built on the principle that reality is personal; that each living individual is joined to the next not by a hierarchy, but by personal mutual relations, by equal regard. Each person is a member of the world community. No one can be justifiably excluded, and it is the responsibility of those within the community to make certain that everyone is given the opportunity to be included. The idea of fellowship, therefore, is an integral part of the biblical world view. Ultimately, the Bible calls everyone to respond with love (agape) toward their fellows and toward God. As noted by Cherbonnier:
For the Bible, creation is good because of who created it. The watershed which separates this view from pessimistic philosophies and religions reflects the difference between their respective gods. When knowledge, conceived in terms of immediate or demonstrable certainty, is deified, the derogation of the world follows. For the Bible, on the contrary, knowledge, though a very great good, is not an end in itself, and in deed is only made perfect when devoted to the right end, the service of agape. Without love, it runs amuck.(7)
The way to preserve and enhance freedom is to love and be loved.(8)
Richard Niebuhr’s insights are helpful:
Love is rejoicing over the existence of the beloved one; it is the desire that he be rather than not be; it his longing for his presence when he is absent; it is happiness in the thought of him; it is profound satisfaction over everything that makes him great and glorious. Love is gratitude: it is thankfulness for they existence of the beloved; it is the happy acceptance of everything that he gives without the jealous feeling that the self ought to be able to do as much; ... it is wonder over the other's gift of himself in companionship. Love is reverence: it keeps its distance even as it draws near; it does not seek to absorb the other in the self or want to be absorbed by it; it rejoices in the otherness of the other; it desires the be loved to be what he is and does not seek to refashion him into a replica of the self or to make him a means to the self's advancement. As reverence love is and seeks knowledge of the other, not by way of curiosity nor for the sake of gaining power but in rejoicing and in wonder. In all such love there is an element of that 'holy fear' which is not a form of flight but rather deep respect for the otherness of the beloved and the profound unwillingness to violate his integrity. Love is loyalty; it is the willingness to let the self be destroyed rather than that the other cease to be; it is the commitment of the self by self-binding will to make the other great.(9)
The Problem of Sin
The notion of such a caring community is the ideal. Having confronted one’s personal duty, one must also be aware that what is called evil and sin continues to exist in the world. In the Bible sin is idolatry,(10) the choice of a false god (e.g., power, wealth, a nation, oneself, Zeus)
(7) Ibid., p. 83.
(8) Cherbonnier, “Liberty,” Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Scribner’s, 1963), p. 583.
(9) H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (New York: Harper, 1956), p. 35.
(10) Cherbonnier, "Idolatry," in A Handbook of Christian Theology, pp. 176-183.
and the values and relationships that flow from such an allegiance. Idolatrous choices betray God and his intentions for humanity. One might conclude that all instances of sin involve a betrayal of God and probably of other persons. The covenant that binds people together and mankind with God is founded in trust; when anyone chooses to disregard that contract he acts against both humankind and God; he becomes idolatrous. This is a general premise of biblical religion. Cherbonnier is careful to note the uniqueness of the biblical concept of sin:
It is sometimes imagined that the idea of sin is peculiar to the Bible. Actually, nearly every philosophy and religion has its own definition of sin. They differ in their respective conceptions of what constitutes sin - hybris, as tragedy would have it, or misplaced allegiance, as the Bible maintains.(11)
In its broad sense, then, sin is breaking the bond of trust between the reality of humans and of God. It seems strange to think that such an action could tempt the "good person" - i.e., one who maintains the ideal of truth. It is not, however, the action itself that is tempting, but the removal of responsibility. It is more comfortable for one to feel no obligation to anyone at any time; the burden of morality makes us feel involved, concerned, responsible. This idea of involvement and responsibility is a major thrust of biblical religion. A real temptation is to put aside the trust of human beings and God and set up a private universe in which there are no responsibilities. It is a comfort short-lived, for it demands the price of losing personal relations.(12) If one breaks ties with others, if trust is lost, the personal relation that bound them together is sacrificed. Biblical religion contends that this process of destroying relations is responsible for sin and temptation. It means that an act of sin is inhuman because it denies its perpetrator the right to fulfill God's will. The logic of biblical thought underscores this concept by relating it to the ideas concerning human nature and religious knowledge.
The Aim of Biblical Philosophy
The ultimate aim of biblical philosophy is to increase the flow of personal affection among human beings as they slowly progress by choice toward a true human community. Life becomes an opportunity to live in agape, which generates friendship, mutual trust, and a common incentive to weld individuals into local assemblies of agape, regional peoples of God who are to be a light to those beyond. The biblical approach not only embraces the finite world as its reality, but also considers this world to be a joy, filled with opportunity. This life is the ultimate gift of God; it is not only to be taken seriously, but also enjoyed. Whereas the mystic has the inclination to refuse or minimize pleasure, the biblical view aims at refining pleasure to match God's intention as life's architect. As noted by Cherbonnier:
(11) Cherbonnier, "Biblical Faith and the Idea of Tragedy," p. 51.
(12) Nonetheless, one has the responsibility to set limits on the extent of one’s involvements, according to changing circumstances. Too, one needs to avoid an exaggerated sense of responsibility in which one is overextended.
The Bible ... is never content to side-step an obstacle. It will settle for nothing less than complete victory. Its God wants, not the annihilation of unruly passions, but their conversion, for the greatest powers for evil may also be transformed into even greater forces for good.(13)
Biblical religion/philosophy, then, is more than an internal disposition. Living biblically calls for the nurturing of community, for strengthening human contact and understanding. Ultimately, this is designed not only to benefit the community of individuals, but to draw the free human being into relationship with God, to make the human and the divine enter a time of harmony and development. The conclusion of the current phase of history, therefore, has always been anticipated as the beginning of a new age, a time when word and action become synonymous and mutual trust is commonplace. This, too, is an ideal, but it favors biblical philosophy with a feeling of hope and expectancy that is distinctive among world religious traditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary Reading
As a review, it would be useful to read “A Synoptic View of Biblical Religion” in the Biblical Thought subsite.
In the Cherbonnier Subsite
Hardness of Heart, Chs. 12-15
“Biblical Faith and the
Idea of Tragedy”
“Can There Be Morality Without Rules?”
“Humility”
“Idolatry”
“Liberty”
“Macmurray’s Transformation of Ethics”
“Perfection”
In the Kirkpatrick Subsite
“Capital Punishment”
“Heroes and
Villains”
“Sermon at the Institution of a Rector”
“Introduction to Persons In Relation by Macmurray”
“Toward A Metaphysic of Community”
Also, by Kirkpatrick, The Ethics of Community (Blackwell, 2001).
In the Reflections Subsite
Hopefully, all of the items are consistent with biblical “consequences for living.”
(13) Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, p. 82.
In the Textbooks Subsite
Nolan and Kirkpatrick, Living Issues In Ethics
Especially, Chapters 5. 6. 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 (Click title in left margin and use Adobe Acrobat Reader.)