Christianity's Moral Philosophy

In the classes that I teach for UIU on Contemporary Ethics (and to a lesser degree in the classes on World Religions), I explore some of the primary ethical systems in practice in humanity, such as:

• Consequentialism (of which popular Utilitarianism is a special case)
• Virtue Ethics
• Deontological Ethics 
• Natural Law

as well as some others not as widely practiced, like Feminist and Relational Ethics.

Whenever I do this, I inevitably get around to the question of which of these is most like Christianity, or more precisely, which of these is most consistent with historic Christian theology and praxis?

The conclusion I most often come to is that the moral philosophy of Christianity is a special case of Deontology, in which the Moral Imperative of Deontology is informed by God in three ways:  1) the basic moral hard wiring common to humanity, 2) the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and 3) in these latter days, a living and active relationship with God through faith in Jesus as the Son of God.  

Deontology, to those readers who may not have had much opportunity to study ethics, is sometimes called the "ethics of duty".  A prominent proponent of this ethical system was the philosopher Immanuel Kant.  The essence of it is this: there are such things as moral good and moral evil, and they are known by the vast majority of humanity.  As a result of this nearly universal agreement, we must take them as moral imperatives to do the right and avoid the wrong as those concepts are generally known.  We have a duty to obey these moral imperatives, the obedience of which is moral goodness, and the disobedience of which is moral evil.

As to how these moral imperatives for Christians become informed by God, there is a presupposition that must first be stated.  Christians hold that God exists (specifically YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), that God is the epitome of moral goodness, and that God was directly involved in creation of the universe in which we find ourselves.  Unlike Deists, Christians see God as interventionist, as immanent, not as disinterested and aloof.  In the process of creation (whether by fiat - ex nihilo, or by active divine guidance of evolutionary processes) God imbued creation with a moral order as a direct result of God's own nature.  The LOGOS of God, the divine creative reason and will, was what guided creation, and still does.  We see this in John 1:1-3a: 

"In the beginning was the [LOGOS], and the [LOGOS] was with God, and the [LOGOS] was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."

As a result of this moral order permeating creation, humanity also has a moral compass - the conscience.  The Apostle Paul described the effect of that this way in his letter to the Romans (1:19-20 and 2:14-16)

 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse ..."

"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

So even without the Jewish and Christian scriptures, God still impressed on the hearts of humans what is morally right and wrong.  But God did not stop there.  Being an interventionist God, willing to step into the created order and steer it, God also sent teachers to humanity in the form of Moses who communicated to ancient Israel the Ten Commandments and other teachings of the Law of God, as well as the prophets who told Israel and Judah when they were going morally off course and how to change direction.  Here is a clear example from the prophet Micah (6:8):

He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

And this from the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians (4:6-9):

Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.

In this way, the scriptures also inform the moral imperatives by which Christians strive to live.  But for those who have put their faith for their moral salvation in the free grace (undeserved favor) of God, through identification with Jesus Christ as Savior, there is an additional way that God informs their moral imperatives: by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, as explained by Jesus himself in John 14:15-17, 25-26):

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. [...] I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."

This spiritual connection with God via the Holy Spirit is what informs us moment by moment of what is true and right.  It also assures us of our position as beloved children in the family of God, as the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8:7-17a:

For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.  

So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ...

So, with their Deontological Moral Imperatives being informed by God in these ways, Christians have both a duty to obey the Moral Imperatives of God, and have a joy in doing so since they know that this pleases God, and aligns with the moral order of the universe.  For Christians, then, Moral Goodness is adherence to, and alignment, affiliation with, God and God's teachings; Moral Evil is departure from or rebellion against the same.

When faced with a moral choice, the Christian attempts to align decisions with God's moral order, and is informed by conscience, the scriptures and by the Holy Spirit's guidance in the moment.  The dilemma faced by moral philosophies like Utilitarianism, with its need to assign cost and benefit to life and death, health and suffering, is not one that should trouble Christians.  When faced with a test like the "lifeboat" scenario, where you must choose who gets thrown overboard to allow an overloaded lifeboat to stay afloat, there is no need to evaluate the value of the elderly passenger versus the child, the woman versus the man, the professor versus the carpenter, etc.  For the Christian, the moral imperative is to do as the Apostle Paul teaches us in his letter to the Philippians (2:3-8): 

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.  Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross.

As Christians, we align with Jesus in our moral choices.  And so when faced with the lifeboat scenario or other such moral dilemmas, our moral imperative is informed by God through our conscience, the scriptures, and the guidance of God's Spirit.  

Who leaves the lifeboat?  

I do.  I go overboard, so that you all can live.

Fandom and Identification

During the NFL playoffs, Diane and I wear our Packer T-shirts on gameday (like today!  #GoPack).

We identify ourselves as followers of that specific pro football team. I also have Packer gear in my office, stickers on my car, autographed items by Packer players and ... wait for it ... season tickets to all their home games at Lambeau Field.  Not to mention that in my chest freezer I have two boxes of genuine sod from Lambeau - real Frozen Tundra!  Man, I identify with that team.

What it made me wonder about is how do I identify myself as a follower of Jesus? The Scriptures teach that identification with Christ is an essential element of a faith that leads to salvation.  Theologians like N.T. Wright have devoted entire books to the concept of a believer's identity being tied up with Jesus Christ, it is that important that we do so.  

So, what evidence is there that I identify with Jesus and depend on Him for salvation?  I certainly have the gear (Bibles, study materials, t-shirts, and mugs) at home, in my office, in my car... never did get Jesus' autograph (or a piece of the True Cross), but nevertheless, there is evidence.  There's even ... wait for it ... a Masters' Degree in Theology from Bethel Seminary.  I suppose I could go up there and cut some sod from the campus lawn and put it in my freezer as further proof...

Beyond the gear, I do also sprinkle my emails and conversation at work occasionally with tangential references to Scripture and the stories Jesus told.  I've preached sermons, sang inspirational songs in worship, led Bible studies, helped to grow up new believers into a more mature faith, given funds to people and organizations that advance the Kingdom of God, etc.

Still, I hear in the back of my mind the Apostle Paul saying to the Corinthian church:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

This reminds me that the gear means nothing, the acts of devotion mean nothing.  What is telling is my heart attitude, which no one really sees.  The outward appearance of fandom can easily mislead others; we can even deceive ourselves into thinking we identify with the object of our devotion because of all the things we do.  As God said to Samuel when he was looking for a replacement for King Saul, "the Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”  May my heart be true, though all else be outward show.

Genetics and the Doctrine of Original Sin

With the proliferation of DNA testing into criminal justice, paternity and prenatal testing, and ancestry research, it was only a matter of time before knowing what's in your genome became affordable and within the reach of "regular people" (like me).

About a year ago, I sent in my saliva sample and $99 and got back a .csv file full of crazy stuff, like this:

#Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns.  Each line 

#corresponds to a SNP.  Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where 

#possible).  Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position 

#of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates.  Columns four and five 

#contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype).  The genotype is reported 

#on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference.

rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2

rs4477212 1 82154 T T

rs3131972 1 752721 G G

rs12562034 1 768448 G G

rs11240777 1 798959 G G

rs6681049 1 800007 C C 

Page after page of this stuff is what was used to determine that I am less Western European (particularly Saxon and Bavarian) in ancestry than I had thought.  Instead I have more of an Eastern European ancestry (think Prussian and Austro-Hungarian empires), with a chunk of British and Scandinavian heritage mixed in.  Okay, then.  So much for my parents' and grandparents' stories..

That process was pretty interesting.  But even moreso was what happened when I joined Livewello.com and sent my genomic record in to look for mutations (favorable and unfavorable) that might be useful to know about, like for instance knowing that I have a genetic predisposition to reject the effects of Metformin (a common pre-diabetic medicine) because I have a gene mutation that blocks its absorption into the bloodstream.  But on the other hand, I have genetics that help me to resist substance addictions, and lack mutations which would tend toward Alzheimer's and Dementia.  Woo!  I'll be the life of the party in the nursing home!

I told my local endocrine specialist about the anti-metformin gene and she just shrugged and said "nothing I know anything about", and went right on with her normal treatments.  But then, why should she be expected to know about this emerging field, when it's not what she was trained in?

So, over Christmas, Diane and I drove to Austin, TX to see our daughter.  While there, I visited a clinic which specializes in genetic disorders (especially of metabolism) to see what they could tell me.  Yikes!  I feel like the Apostle Paul when he said "Oh wretched man that I am!  Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Page after page of bad news.

Well, not THAT bad.  It's just that in dealing with inflammation of all sorts, processing key nutrients, weight management, and production of energy, I have genetic deficiencies that spell an uphill battle to ever be "normal" in those areas.  I've known for years that I have tendencies toward certain health problems, like my parents and siblings did, but never anything that conclusively points to why.  Now I know - a lot of it is genetics.

And yet, even though genetics determine your strengths and weaknesses, they don't doom you to a particular lifestyle.  There are things you can do to delay onset of conditions, to supplement chemically what your body doesn't do well, etc.  You still have control over how you deal with genetic predispositions, even though they make make it hard to be in perfect health.

Here is an excerpt from the geneticist's report explaining a little of the interpretation of gene mutations:

So, today I got to thinking about the doctrine of Original Sin in light of all this recent discovery of inherited gene mutations, and I came to the conclusion that Original Sin is like having a metaphysical genetic mutation (as opposed to a physical one) which gives a you genetic predisposition toward estrangement toward (or rebellion against) God.  All of humanity is at least heterozygous (+/-) for this Sin gene; we all have a difficult time being obedient to God, or even just to our own conscience (a proxy for God in those who don't know God).  Some of humanity, I think, are homozygous (+/+) for the Sin gene and by nature have a much more difficult time refraining from doing what is morally wrong.

But, having the genetic predisposition doesn't mean we are helpless and doomed to an immoral life estranged from God.  There are things we can do to ward off temptation, to supplement with prayer and reading in the areas where we don't handle things well, to reach out to God for help fighting against this genetic defect passed down from Eve to us (like mitochondrial DNA).

Fortunately, there was One who was born without that Sin mutation (-/-) and who stands in our place today, offering to us a metaphysical version of "gene splicing" to remove our unfavorable mutation.  His operating room is in the Hereafter, but eventually we who believe will be cured and live a life in Eternity free of the struggle against Sin.  Thanks be to God!

Humanity's Tripartite Nature

We are made up of Body, Soul, and Spirit.

Body is made up of Blood, Bone, and Tissue.

Soul is made up of Emotions, Will and Reason.

Spirit is made up of...

of...

hm.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Retirement as a Career

Anticipating retirement in 4-5 years, I've already laid out a rough schedule for my days:

     9:00 AM      Rise & ready self for day (coffee, groom, dress)
   10:30 AM      Body Work (mall walking, stationary bike, weights, on a rotation)
   12:00 PM       Lunch on own
     1:00 PM       Mental Stimulation (Reading, brain games, statistics)
     2:00 PM       Emotional Work (Music, Art, Poetry, etc. - appreciating or creating)
     3:00 PM       Soul Stimulation (Bible Study, Devotional Writing, Blogging)
     4:00 PM       Slack time if any of the above run over
     5:00 PM       Dinner with spouse (prep and consumption)
     7:00 PM       Relationship Work (time with spouse and/or friends)
   10:00 PM       Frivolous Indulgences
   12:00 PM       Sleep

I fully expect to keep a spreadsheet on the above.  :)

*******

A couple of days ago, I ran across a post from a website called Quiet Revolution (it's mostly about introverts - go figure).  It warned about the artificiality of retirement and encouraged the benefits of lifelong work.  I've certainly heard that advice before, but it's the first time that I've thought about the idea of retirement as a 20+ year career that I will be devoting myself to soon.  Not a bad way of seeing it, really - as a job to do, and to do well.  It made me think that I should write up a job description for retirement, set annual goals and interim milestones, track my performance, etc.  Hm.

So here's the article - which may form a very useful guide to my next career.

Keep working.  

And make sure whatever you’re doing includes the 4 S’s of meaningful work:

S – Social

We are the most social mammals on the planet for a reason, and it’s not just the extroverts who can master this. Look, according to Stumbling on Happiness by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert, our social relationships have a greater effect on our happiness than our income, religion, gender, or even health. What does a good workplace foster? Small team dinners. CEO AMAs. Lunch walking groups. Work sports leagues. If these are missing, start one. 

S – Structure

There are 168 hours in a week. Fifty-six are for sleep (eight hours a night if you can get it), 56 for work (including things like commuting and extra work at home), and 56 for your passion.

On structure, there are two things to point out. One, work helps create and pay for your third bucket—the fun bucket, the passion bucket. And two, if everyone in this structure has a third bucket, what can each person bring in from outside of work? Can the word nerd start a book club? Can the hospital volunteer start a company volunteer program? Can the late night DJ plan the Christmas party? 

Work structure should allow outside work passions to be big parts of our lives. 

S – Stimulation

Always be on the lookout to learn something new. In every job you have, ensure the steepest possible learning curves are between “value giving” and “value getting.” Examples to make sure this happens are things such as staying a maximum of two years in roles, initiating job sharing or job trades, planning regular development sessions, and scheduling quarterly growth meetings with one- and two-up managers. Make sure you can always say yes to the question “Am I learning a lot and adding a lot?” If your answer is tilted one way, it means you’re giving something else up. 

S – Story

There’s a reason why Medtronic, the medical devices company famous for popularizing the pacemaker, has family members of patients read letters at company meetings. How would you feel about your job if an 11-year-old girl thanked you for giving her five extra years of memories with her father?  

“Story” is all about feeling that you’re part of something bigger than yourself. It’s about first ensuring the company’s mission and higher-level purpose capture the heart and then bringing the mission to life by regularly sharing customer stories, hanging anecdotal posters on walls, and talking about it at open or closed meetings. 

At Facebook, you’re connecting the world. At Wikipedia, you’re giving the world the sum of human knowledge free. At your local paper, you’re increasing community. 

What’s your workplace story?

So, I say never give up work. Meaningful work. Work you love. Because you’ll be giving up the 4 S’s—Social, Structure, Stimulation, and Story—you get every day from being there. 

Power To The People! (but which people?)

Dear reader, as I have said before, I did not vote for Donald Trump, nor did I ever support him.  But after Trump's victory this week, which nearly every pollster, politico and pundit considered virtually impossible, and ludicrous to contemplate, I grew philosophical about the nature of populism and elitism.

Wikipedia describes Populism as: a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.

Um, yeah.  That feels about right.  From time to time, when governments become hidebound and bureaucratic, run by a relatively small circle of elites (whether political, intellectual, economic, or media types), the rest of society begins to feel left out, ignored, disenfranchised, marginalized or whatever other descriptor you care to use.  At some point, a collective sentiment begins to form and this forgotten segment of society wants to throw off the yoke of the elites and take back power.

Populism can come from the right or the left of the political spectrum, and this year we had both represented in the form of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  To me, that would have been the more interesting contest.  Instead the left-leaning populists who followed Bernie didn't turn out for the candidate of the establishment elites:  Hillary Clinton.  And when she referred to Trump supporters as   a "basket of deplorables", I think for many that was the epitome of elitism, and it's the point at which her fortunes began to fall.

Wikipedia refers to Elitism like this: Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Yup.  Right again.  The characteristic most central to members of the elite is that they honestly believe they know what is best for the rest of the people - that the rabble are ignorant and can't possibly direct their own affairs, much less society's, with anywhere near the efficiency and benificence that the elites can.  That was Hillary in a nutshell; Hillary knows best.  So do others of her class.  The rabble knows nothing and must be properly guided for their own good.

Oops!  The rabble rose up and threw out the elites this week.  Poor, ungrateful ignorant wretches, these deplorables.  Who do they think they are, the backward Colonials who threw off the rule of King George?  The French peasants who repudiated the rule of Marie Antoinette and the ruling classes in Europe?  Electing Donald Trump is simply proof to elitists that when left to their own devices the rabble make incredibly poor choices.  Well, elites, just keep telling yourself that.  Sit on the sidelines and criticize, while the rabble consolidates power.  You're on the outside looking in now.

Desire vs Reason

I was thinking Sunday about how reason should inform us of what is true and what is right and what is good.  This is particularly so if our reason is informed by our conscience, and our conscience by our faith and the Scriptures.

For those not so informed, however, reason devolves into what is naturally a value system derived from what we think is true, right and good, APART from such sources as faith and the Scriptures.  More on this in a minute.

We are often presented today with the supposed truism that if we are more educated, we have more facts to reason with and thus will make better decisions and more "moral" choices.  This supposes the supremacy of reason over other motivations (like emotion and desire).  But even the great proponents of rationalism were also driven by desire.

Desire and reason often work at cross purposes with each other.  Not that desire is bad (although the Stoics thought so) in and of itself, it's simple different.  Each are strong motivators.  Those who argue for the supremacy of reason also believe that as education increases, the power of reason increases and so education leads to the triumph of reason.

Balderdash!  I say.  Poppycock!  Horse hockey, even!  Desire is every bit as strong a motivator as reason and often wins out over it.  The head and the heart can be adversaries... but they don't have to be.  Many desires are reasonable ones:

We desire to be: Loved.  Accepted.  Successful.  Comforted.  Thought (and spoken) well of.  Protected.  Understood.

There's nothing wrong with these things.  They are natural and reasonable desires.  It's when they get out of control that we are seen to "behave irrationally", when our desire to be successful leads to overwork, when our desire to be loved leads to promiscuity, when our desire for protection leads to paranoia.

So, wouldn't it be a good thing to see what we know is true and right and good, and find our where our desires line up with our reason?  When reason and desire can partner up, then motivation can be wholistic and more powerful than if reason and desire oppose each other.

There are times when you can't explain why you want something, you can't explain desire.  From this flows the old saying "the heart has reasons that reason doesn't know."  But if you can think through your desires and discover whether they align well with what you know, then perhaps you will be unified and live a life of well-being.  And that well-being, that "Shalom", will be ever more such if our reason is informed by the Creator and the Author of our faith, who said: "My peace (shalom) I leave with you."

Perhaps I will live a life of well-being, of Shalom, too, if I heed my own advice.