a new perspective on ethics

in preparation for (or rather, in juxtaposition to) next term's philosophy module on ethics, i've been reading ethics by dietrich bonhoeffer - the 'seminal reinterpretation of the role of christianity in the modern secularised world', according to the back cover of the book. it was actually a gift from some of the guys in church for my 21st birthday back in jun, and i'm glad i've finally got down to reading it (now you know how long it takes for me to get down to reading a particular book, if ever). it's given me a new perspective on ethics - if not on a philosophical level, then certainly on a theological level.

[the headings in bold and comments in normal font are my own; everything else in italics quotes bonhoeffer.]

the knowledge of good and evil

The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate this knowledge.

what?

Already in the possibility of the knowledge of good and evil Christian ethics discerns a falling away from the origin. Man at his origin knows only one thing: God. It is only in the unity of his knowledge of God that he knows of other men, of things, and of himself. He knows all things only in God, and God in all things. The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is no longer at one with this origin.

In the knowledge of good and evil man does not understand himself in the reality of the destiny appointed in his origin, but rather in his own possibilities, his possibility of being good or evil. He knows himself now as something apart from God, outside God, and this means that he now knows only himself and no longer knows God at all; for he can know God only if he knows only God. The knowledge of good and evil is therefore separation from God. Only against God can man know good and evil.

ah, that makes sense.

the philosophy of philosophy

Knowing of good and evil in disunion with the origin, man begins to reflect upon himself. His life is now his understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of God. Self-knowledge is now the measure and the goal of life. This holds true even when man presses out beyond the bounds of his own self. Self-knowledge is man’s interminable striving to overcome his disunion with himself by thought; by unceasingly distinguishing himself from himself he endeavours to achieve unity with himself.

here, socrates's dictum that 'the unexamined life is not worth living' springs to mind. self-knowledge and self-reflection are indeed what philosophy is about, but they alone can't save you. as john macarthur observes, 'there is a serious missing connection'.

unity in the faith

Now anyone who reads the New Testament even superficially cannot but notice the complete absence of this world of disunion, conflict and ethical problems. Not man’s falling apart from God, from men, from things and from himself, but rather the rediscovered unity, reconciliation, is now the basis of the discussion and the point of decision of the specifically ethical experience. The life and activity of men is not at all problematic or tormented or dark: it is self-evident, joyful, sure and clear.

the legalism of the pharisee

It is in Jesus’s meeting with the Pharisee that the old and the new are most clearly contrasted. The correct understanding of this meeting is of the greatest significance for the understanding of the gospel as a whole.

The Pharisee is not an adventitious historical phenomenon of a particular time. He is the man to whom only the knowledge of good and evil has come to be of importance in his entire life; in other words, he is simply the man of disunion.

For the Pharisee every moment of life becomes a situation of conflict in which he has to choose between good and evil.

in the world, but not of it

What takes place between Jesus and the Pharisees is only a repetition of that first temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11), in which the devil tries to lure Him into a disunion in the word of God, and which Jesus overcomes by virtue of His essential unity with the Word of God.

Already in the New Testament there is no single question put by men to Jesus which Jesus answers with an acceptance of the human either-or that every such question implies. Every one of Jesus’s answers, to the questions of His enemies and of His friends alike, leaves this either-or behind it in a way which shames the questioner. Jesus does not allow Himself to be invoked as an arbiter in vital questions; He refuses to be held by human alternatives.

the freedom of Jesus

The freedom of Jesus is not the arbitrary choice of one amongst innumerable possibilities; it consists on the contrary precisely in the complete simplicity of His action, which is never confronted by a plurality of possibilities, conflicts or alternatives, but always only by one thing.

This one thing Jesus calls the will of God. He says that to do this will is His meat. This will of God is His life. He lives and acts not by the knowledge of good and evil but by the will of God. There is only one will of God. In it the origin is recovered; in it there is established the freedom and the simplicity of all action.

greater good. lesser evil. where do you draw the line? as the line on the back of kurt angle's "freedom of choice" t-shirt half-jokingly goes, 'tap out or angle slam' - that's not having the freedom of choice.

having the freedom of choice appears to be a good thing, but it also means that you're constrained to make a choice. having the freedom of choice means that you don't have the freedom to choose not to have the freedom of choice. instead, true liberty - true christian liberty - lies in having the freedom from choice, which comes from our freedom in Christ.

life is not about drawing lines like the pharisees did. at the end of the day, keeping God's commands and discovering His will is what counts.

do not conform, but be transformed (new year resolution #4)

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will.” - Romans 12:1-2 (NIV)

What does this proving mean? Why is it needed? This question may appear to be logically necessary, yet it is in itself wrongly conceived. The knowledge of Jesus Christ, metamorphosis, renewal, love, or whatever other name we may give it, is something living, and not something which is given, fixed and possessed once and for all. For this reason there arises every day anew the question how here, today and in my present situation I am to remain and to be preserved in this new life with God, with Jesus Christ. And it is just this question which is involved in proving what is the Will of God.

Knowledge of Jesus Christ implies ignorance of a man’s own good and evil; knowledge of Jesus Christ refers the man entirely to Jesus Christ; and from this it follows that there must every day arise a new authentic proving which will consist precisely in the exclusion of other sources of the knowledge of the will of God.

This proving springs from the knowledge that a man is preserved, sustained and guided by the will of God, the knowledge that he has already been endowed with the merciful union with the will of God; and it seeks to confirm this knowledge every day afresh in his actual concrete life.

It is not, therefore, a defiant or desperate proving; it is a humble and a trustful proving, a proving in freedom for the ever new word of God, in the simplicity of the ever one word of God. It is a proving which no longer calls in question that unity with the origin which is regained in Jesus; it presupposes this unity, and yet it must always recover it anew.

But when all this has been said it is still necessary really to examine what is the will of God, what is rightful in a given situation, what course is truly pleasing to God; for, after all, there have to be concrete life and action. Intelligence, discernment, attentive observation of the given facts, all these now come into lively operation, all will be embraced and pervaded by prayer.

Particular experiences will afford correction and warning. Direct inspirations must in no case be heeded or expected, for this could all too easily lead to a man’s abandoning himself to self-deception. In view of what is at stake there must be a lofty spirit of sober self-control. Possibilities and consequences must be carefully assessed. In other words, the whole apparatus of human powers must be set in motion when it is a matter of proving what is the will of God.

But in all this there will be no room for the torment of being confronted with insoluble conflicts, or for the arrogant notion that one can master every conflict, or even for the enthusiastic expectation and assertion of direct inspiration. There will be the belief that if a man asks God humbly God will give him certain knowledge of His will; and then, after all this earnest proving, there will also be the freedom to make a real decision, and with it the confidence that it is not man but God Himself who, through this proving, gives effect to His will.

Anxiety as to whether one has done the right thing will not now become a desperate clinging to one’s own goodness or swing round into the assuredness of the knowledge of good and evil, but it will be dispelled in the knowledge of Jesus Christ who alone delivers the judgement of mercy; it will cause a man’s own goodness to lie hidden until the proper time in the knowledge and the mercy of the Judge.

discernment in christian liberty is really about proving the will of God with our free will - more precisely, our God-given capacity for exercising our free will within our God-given capability of accomplishing all that our free will desires - but that's for another time.