For now I can already hear the protests of the non-Christians. Essential Christian values! - Why I Am Still A Christian - Post 4

"That is to say, we cannot put religion aside without accepting the consequences.  We must accept that there is no unconditionally binding obligation to perform a particular humane action without the acceptance of an unconditionally binding authority which lays that obligation upon us. "

In the going on seventeen years that I have been publicly trying to figure out how the American left went so wrong as to have been in the political wilderness longer than Exodus says the Children of Israel were, there have been several breakthroughs in my understanding.  One of the most important was when I realized that it was equality and not the common and the typically childish and self-centered notions of libertarian freedom that was the actual basis of any kind of decent government and society.  Any legitimate freedom is based in equality, which, among other things is an explanation of why egalitarian democracy or, really any nearly decent government would be a new thing on Earth. It also explains the opposite, freedom based on inequality was a guarantee for government to be of, by and for gangsters and oppressors.  

Another was a result of these investigations starting in the context of the atheism fad of the 00's, my long disputations with materialists and atheists and the naive faithful of the secular religion of scientism, that everything from the absolute moral obligation to care for the environment, to treat others as we wanted to be treated to the concept of rights (probably as often misunderstood as the concept of freedom) that a government was obligated to protect rested on nothing less than the human understanding of the will of God putting that obligation on us.  Along the way I found that, in response to some of the more clueless slogans, bromides and pseudo-historical-philosophical lines of popular atheism, that that insight was certainly not limited to the Jewish religious tradition with which Christianity shares its wellsource of thought. And anyone who reads the Jewish Scriptures in which God is said to have made covenants with other Peoples and, also, animals, would not have been surprised at that. I think anything but an egalitarian-cosmopolitan reading of the Hebrew Scriptures misses the point.  God purposefully created all of us.

Among the head-shaking ironies of these years of investigating the problem, I think that there is no better example of the total depravity of refusing to accept the source of the commandment of equality and, so legitimate freedom, to treat others as we would be treated, to tell the truth and not lie, etc. than the God hollerers and Bible thumpers on the American-fascist right and their allies in vulgar materialism, such as the godless libertarians who are more likely to be watching sy-fy movies and series (in my experience, typically boy-men) than in trying to defend any ideology other than selfishness and who generally don't give a shit about much but their pleasure (there are similar people deputed to be on the American left, and I've devoted many a post to pointing them out). If I were in Britain or Russia or Hungary or China or Brazil there would be other named examples to cite but I looked at where the hits on this blog come from and most of them are from North America.  

Two The Nominally Christian and the Truly Christian

NOTE:  I couldn't think of any way to effectively break this up into smaller pieces.  That's because, as I said before, you figure you know where he's going till he gets there, you might just find he agrees with you more than he doesn't.

Here I should like to speak not only to Christians but to non-Christians also, as well as to the many people who simply doubt. Perhaps Christians and non-Christians alike can agree initially on three important points:

- In the present crisis of values, most people are convinced that without the minimum degree of consensus about systems of values it is impossible for human beings to live together at all.  Without the minimum degree of consensus about received, basic norms and attitudes (and these things are certainly under serious discussion in the different political parties today), it is questionable whether even the state can function,  in view of all the conflicting interests.  We can assume that there is agreement about one point at least - that there can be no civilized society and no state without some system of laws.  But no legal system can exist without a sense of justice.  And no moral sense of justice can exist without a moral sense or ethic.  And there can be no moral sense or ethic without basic norms, attitudes, and values

- If (as I have suggested) it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to justify ethics purely rationally, then we cannot recklessly ignore the significance and function of the phenomenon which for thousands of years has offered the justification of an ethic and for the basic values of men and women.  That is to say, we cannot put religion aside without accepting the consequences.  We must accept that there is no unconditionally binding obligation to perform a particular humane action without the acceptance of an unconditionally binding authority which lays that obligation upon us.  There is no unconditionally binding moral, humane action without religion.  And if it is not true religion which performs this function, it will be pseudo-religion or quasi-religion.  But for true religion, the sole authority which is permitted to claim absolute, unconditional obedience is nothing humanly conditioned at all;  it is the Absolute itself, to which we give the name God.

The problem with writing this into a series is that so many of the things contained in it beg for a whole post in themselves, in particular, this line, "there is no unconditionally binding obligation to perform a particular humane action without the acceptance of an unconditionally binding authority which lays that obligation upon us."  I believe that more every time I get back into these issues, I certainly haven't found anything like that in any rationalistic or materialistic or popular articulation, that is even if questions of morality arise under them.  Certainly none that isn't vulnerable to summary dismissal. Most typically, an appeal to mere predilection or habit is the best that can be had under those framings and there is nothing less reliable than those for reasons already stated.

It is my experience that in arguing this someone will bring up this or that atheist who is not a selfish, amoral monster who are that way because that's just how they are.  Such examples of those who behave well habitually or out of their personality are not relevant to the problem of the non-religious who are monsters of some degree, no more than Christians who behave well are part of the problem of professed Christians who are monsters.  The problem is how to get those who want to do evil, atheists, non-Christians, professed Christians, etc. to be good. I would not include those contented middle-class professionals who are content with what they have and are too lazy to actively do evil in those who are no problem, their indifference often becomes a problem in practice, they're especially gifted in committing sins of omission.  Many are mildly jaded faculty members in great universities and lesser institutions of somewhat higher learning.  Many are in research.

I will admit that there are professed atheists I know, some who I am related to, who believe, for good reason, that they behave morally without acknowledging any kind of religious belief and even a few who can be generally counted on to behave well as they are somewhat hostile to everything said in the last paragraph.  

Some people may be able to maintain a lifetime of superior moral behavior while denying or hostile to the the idea of God and certainly to religion even as their non-belief holds no assertions of moral absolutes.  I have known some professed atheists who I would trust to act well, generally, perhaps even more than many professed believers. I think the less intellectually based the atheism is, the more likely the non-ideological atheist will maintain that tendency to act morally. I wonder to what extent that may not be a residual vestige of religion in their family or social heritage.  That conclusion is based on my discussions with atheists and my observations of them.  

I would be least likely to expect that's likely if the typical ideological framings of atheism are held by the atheist, materialism, scientism,  etc. Materialism and scientism being present, the record of those being used as a basis for denying the reality of morality, its dissolution into some scheme of relativism or definition of it as merely a matter of social convention (which means it's not real even by the typical standards of materialst-atheist-scientism) is far more resonably expected than that the dedicated materialist and devotee of scientism will not have made those necessary logical steps in debunking morality. That is also a conclusion of my exposure to the thinking of atheists.

The literature of atheism denying the reality of even the most seriously necessary of moral absolutes, against murder and so against every lesser instance of immoral behavior, is a self-generated reason for anyone, atheist or believer, to suspect that those and similar framings of atheism eventually, followed to their logical conclusions  necessitate the impeachment of morality. I think that's more generally true of any rationalistic attempt to find a replacement for morality.

I would ask all of them, non-ideological and ideological atheists  what percentage of the general population would they want to depend on following their example in the total absence of the idea that God commands us to do to others what we would have them do to us.  I would say that even the claimed belief in God, even the claimed belief that the Golden Rule is a Commandment of God and, more so, merely notional religion isn't anything like a guarantee of good behavior.  I couldn't get farther from asserting the idea that a profession of Christianity is a guarantee of superior moral behavior.  Jewish and Christian scripture are full to the top of assertions and examples of why you should never settle for the idea that such a moral rule is merely a matter of social convention.

Religious appearance is one of the most commonly used tools of con men as Trump's infamous upside-down Bible stunt, the Marjorie Taylor Greens' or the TV preachers' professions of faith provide us with perfect examples of that.  As I noted last week you can see that exaggerated profession of belief is, if anything, at least an indicator you should be on your guard, especially among Christians who are commanded by Jesus not to make an overt display of religion, not to swear oaths, etc.  In light of that indication that a claim of religious belief is an unreliable predictor of moral behavior being in evidence, given the propensity of many, especially ideological atheists to attack the idea of the reality of moral commandments, religion's absence can't be counted on to be a more reliable predictor of the moral behavior that atheism does not have as an associated holding of belief. Despite the advocacy of it by some, I don't think that bold sinning which has the integrity of being within the amoral framing of the sinner is, in the end, superior to cowardly sinning which is sinned by a professed believer, hypocritically.  I say that having admitted that I know atheists who I think are quite as trustworthy of moral behavior as all but the greatest of saints who most sincere religious believers also cannot approach in goodness.

- Whether or not we are Christians, we have to admit that the purely humane, basic norms and values of the past were always Christian in character.  And this was entirely for the benefit of human happiness and well-being.  It was the Christian mind and spirit that enshrined the values of human dignity, liberty, justice, solidarity and peace. Without the Christian content that would be, and are equivocal concepts, manipulated at will in both East and West. (It is not only the Peoples' Republics and George Orwell's 1984 which make that plain.) Moreover, whether we like it or not, the Christian message does not offer merely a theoretical and abstract answer to questions about basic norms and values.  It is a practical and concrete answer.

It is here that I should remind you of the approved English title of the book, Why I Am Still A Christian.  It is clear that the European, the Swiss Catholic Hans Kung is saying why HE is still a Christian within what is a more general apologetic work.

I wouldn't have made this claim in this way though I certainly agree that anything good in the modern ethos is a development of the Jewish concept of universal justice and the Christian extension of that in universal love, as I've noted a number of non-Christian thinkers have held.  I've also said that there are other religious traditions that I think hold the same ideas and potentially could generate egalitarian democracy, which, I will repeat, we have only made some progress towards -only to have it turned back under secularism as much as would-be theocracy, theocracy having a nearly uniform history of being a bad idea.

I would stipulate that what Kung said may be true if you are talking about places where Christianity was predominant, I often get the feeling that Kung in this book is mostly thinking of Europe and, maybe the Americas. That is certainly not the case in places where Christianity had not yet been introduced or has never been a dominant religious profession. I think it is too broad to say it's true of the entire world. I think that there are certainly those who would be justified in questioning it, especially in European history.  Though I think in the past thousand years and more, depending on location, most of the moral behavior of Europeans and in other places where Christianity once held sway is due to some observance of the Gospel of Jesus.  I think that Christianity was certainly a moral advance over European paganism.  A comparison with religions elsewhere probably has to be decided on a case by case basis.  Whatever that comparison is, it must be based on performance of morality, not on professions or claims.  But Kung isn't done with this idea, yet.

The future belongs to the young and so it is they in particular who must face this urgent question:  Ought we not to take more seriously again the familiar system of values which can help us determine what to do?  I am not suggesting a nostalgic retreat into the past;  but perhaps we should chart our future course with the help of a certain ancient compass, which may not have outlived its usefulness after all.  A compass which -after many other instruments have proven to have given only unreliable bearings in the tempests of modern times- could perhaps point us a course toward a future of greater human dignity.  A compass that might reorientate us with essential Christian values once more, and in a new way, in an era whose values have been so impoverished. But here we have to make some distinctions.

For now I can already hear the protests of the non-Christians.  Essential Christian values!  What is Christian supposed to mean today?  Christianity is finished. But here I should like to explain myself to these people too, the non-Christians, the unbelievers.  Not only he unbelievers outside but the unbeliever within, in ourselves, who repeatedly raises doubts and objections, who says "I believe" but, like the man in the Gospel, adds: "Help my unbelief!" To these people I should like to give a frank and honest answer.

Frankly and honestly, if many people, whether they consider themselves believers or unbelivers, in considering the possibility of essential Christian values, reject everything that has to do in any way with an authoritarian, unintelligible dogmatics or an unrealistic, narrow-minded morality, then I cannot contradict them.  If they are exasperated with the legalism and opportunism, arrogance and intolerance of so many ecclesiastical functionaries and theologians; if they want to attack the superficial piety of the pious, the boring mediocrity of so many church newspapers and magazines [not to mention TV shows, radio shows and podcasts] and the absence of creative people in the church, I am on their side.  Nor am I by any means ignorant of the failure of Christianity in history.  For I have no intention of whitewashing the history of Christianity, or glossing over its defects;  not only the persecution of our Jewish brothers and sisters, the crusades, the heretic trials, the witch burnings and the religious wars;  but also the Galileo trial and countless wrong condemnations of ideas and people - scientists, philosophers and theologians;  and all the involvements of the church in particular systems of society, government, and thought;  and all of its many failures in the slavery question, the war question, the women's question, the class question and the race question;  and the manifold complicity of the churches with the rulers of various countries in their neglect of the despised, the downtrodden, oppressed, the exploited peoples; and the religion as the opiate of the people . . . . Everywhere here criticism, severe criticism, is appropriate.

But I ask you:  Is this even "Christian"?   Believers and unbelievers must affirm that it is "Christian" only in a traditional, superficial, and untrue sense.  Christendom certainly cannot shed its responsibility for what is called "Christian."  But none of this is Christian in the deeper, pure, original sense; none of it is truly Christian.  It has nothing to do with the Christ to whose name it appeals. In many ways it is part of what brought him to the cross.  It is in fact pseudo-Christian or anti-Christian.

There is so much that is called Christian.  But is it all Christian just because it is called Christian?  We must face up to this question. Even people who acknowledge that they belong to a Christian church - as I do, with complete conviction - would not wish to maintain that everything connected with institutional upholders of Christianity is Christian.

No, with the best will in the world I cannot call it Christian, or possessed of genuine Christian values, when in my own church, for example, ecclesiastical authority alone is involved, instead of Jesus Christ himself, in questions which are important for millions of Catholics.  I must repeat;  With the best will in the world, I cannot think that the One to whom Christianity appeals, Jesus of Nazareth himself, would today take up the same attitude as the Roman authorities in the questions at issue.  I cannot believe
 
- that he, who warned the Pharisees against laying intolerable burdens on people's shoulders would today declare all "artificial" contraception to be mortal sin;

- that he, who particularly invited failures to his table, would forbid all remarried divorced people even to approach that table;
 
- that he, who was constantly accompanied by women (who provided for his keep), and whose apostles, except for Paul, were all married and remained so, would today have forbidden marriage to all ordained men, and ordination to all women;

- that he, who said,"I have compassion on the crowd,"  would have increasingly deprived congregations of their pastors and allowed a system of pastoral care built up over a period of a thousand years to collapse;

- that he, who defended the adulteress and sinner, would pass such harsh verdicts in delicate questions requiring discriminating and critical judgment,like pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion.

No, I cannot think either that, if he came again to day he would agree

- that difference of denomination should continue to be considered an impediment to marriage -indeed that such a marriage should recently have been made an obstacle for Catholic lay theologians who wish to engage in pastoral service (as is also true for Protestant would-be pastors);

-that the validity of the ordination of Protestant pastors and their Eucharistic  celebration should be disputed;  that open communication and common  celebration of the Eucharist, shared church building and parish centers and ecumenical religious instruction should be prevented;  indeed that ecumenical services should be systematically forbidden on Sundays in an era of increasingly empty churches;

- that, instead of entering into open and reasonable debate, the attempt should be made to silence theologians, university chaplains, teachers of religion, journalists, organizational officers, and people responsible for youth work with decrees and "declarations" (and even, whenever possible, with disciplinary or financial measures).  

No, if we want to be Christian, we cannot demand freedom and human rights for the church externally and not grant them internally.  We cannot replace urgently needed reforms in the church by fine words about Europe, the Third world, and the North-South conflicts at synods, church assemblies, and papal rallies.  To put it briefly, justice and freedom cannot be preached only where it costs the church and its leaders nothing.

It has to be remembered that Hans Kung was a Catholic theologian, an ordained priest, one who dissented from the official teaching of the Church in a number of instances, including what was probably the most significant critique of the dreadful 19th century innovation of papal "infallibility" (something that led to serious consequences for him even before JPII and his protegee Karl Ratzinger stripped him of his license to be called a Catholic theologian). His later work in ecumenism, not only among Christians but world wide, across traditions, should also be remembered.  His focus in the book can be seen as a criticism of Catholicism first but of Christians in general even as he is presenting a case in favor of Christian belief.  

A lot of what may seem, at first, like presumption in his text can be counted on to turn out to be confession.