Philosophy

The following was posted as a response to one of Bretzke’s chapters in A Morally Complex World. In analyzing Bretzky’s A Moral Complex World, one of the most important things that came out in Bretzke’s writing’s actually are more from this week and it dealt with the particularities in the relationship between Scripture and ethics (Henceforth S&e). On page 86, as a precursor to the various models of the aforementioned topics, he lays a simple but yet solid foundation for establishing this paradigm. He notes, “What can we learn about constructing viable methodology for integrating Scripture and ethics from the preceding brief exegesis of this short passage from Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? Several points come forward….” He then list two general principles:

• The Bible is hardly self-interpreting (what was the then and there? & Descriptive/Prescriptive) • The Bible has to be read in the context of tradition (What have we said about this before? What does the Community say about it now?)

Although these points were mentioned in passing to the larger framework he was trying to address, nevertheless, I think that these are the core to any understanding in relationship between S&e. Using Wogaman’s language of “tensions,” I wanted to say that there are tensions within this framework that need to be pointed out in order to proceed to specific models of S&e. Although my points are not meant to be exhaustive by any means, they are meant to elaborate on the above points and note the “tensions” we must handle carefully in order to extrapolate any ideas for our ethical framework. In addition, these points are also more or a less a launching pad for further discussion, since these are the conversations that are supposed to happen in the community.

One of the first “tensions” I see in regards to this framework is the tension of a passage being classified as Descriptive vs. Prescriptive? This simple dichotomy can be used to analyze scriptural scenarios that will prompt us to ask whether this is being described as part of a larger context of the story or is it just plainly laying out a principal that can be extracted and applied to us in all times and in all places? To say that Scripture must conform to either one of these principals’ runs the risk of falling into a false dichotomy, for a particular passage of Scripture might be both. For example, “With regard to food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” (1 Cor 8:1) is a case in point of a passage that not only was descriptive of the event there but also prescribes for us the stripped down element of the tension that exists between an arrogant knowledge and a proper love.

Going back to Wogaman brings me to my second point picked up by Bretzke; namely, that there is another “tension” between revelation versus reason. I wanted to confine this to the tension between reason and tradition. Although, the tension I bring between these two has not been an overt one throughout history, nevertheless, they need to be addressed in the context of the modern church. My struggle has always been between coming to my own conclusions of what the Bible says and letting someone else tell me what that means. I have swayed between both positions to the point where I now think that it lies between both these poles. While reasoning from Scripture is a great intellectual enterprise (think of it as young, hip and daring), interpretation within a tradition can be compared to the older seasoned folks in our congregations. These folks are the buoys from where we find our markers in the vast sea of interpretation. We need both. Tradition reminds us of the dangers of the past but a ministerial use of reason takes us forward. To fall back on one takes us to traditionalism while strict reliance on the other leaves us with a high and dry rationalism. If traditionalism were to speak, it would quote Malcolm Muggeridge’s quip saying, “News is old things happening to new people.” And if a ministerial use of reason would speak, then it would quote Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7 saying, “The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith. For that with which the human reason is naturally endowed is clearly most true; so much so, that it is impossible for us to think of such truths as false. [If we only understand the meaning of the terms in such self-evident propositions as “The whole is greater than the part” or “What has color must have size,” we cannot think them false.] Nor is it permissible to believe as false that which we hold by faith, since this is confirmed in a way that is so clearly divine. [It is not our faith but its object, God, that justifies our certainty.] Since, therefore, only the false is opposed to the true, as is clearly evident from an examination of their definitions, it is impossible that truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally.[1]

________________________________________ [1] Quoted in Kreeft, P., & Tacelli, R. K. (1994). Handbook of Christian apologetics : Hundreds of answers to crucial questions (38). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Some thoughts on the tensions between Scripture and Ethics", url: "http://www.thomisttacos.com/some-thoughts-on-the-tensions-between-scripture-and-ethics" });