| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Toward An Approach to Christian Ethics IV |  |
H. Richard Niebuhr (not the well-known neo-orthodox theologian) contrasts what he calls "the positive and warm ethics of love which characterizes the First Letter of John," with the "largely negative morality: avoidance of sin and fearsome preparation for the coming day of judgment," taught by Tertullian.29
This seems to be a very important distinction. It is tragically possible to apply ethics that are directly and explicitly Biblical in a way that belies the very spirit in which those ethics were given. It is also possible to cloak one's fear of loss of control (either of one's self or of others) under the cover-all of biblical ethics. The result can be "fortress theology"; the view of the church that sees herself besieged and on the defense against the dangerous "gates of Hades". Interestingly though, it is very difficult to understand the metaphor given by Christ in Mt.16 this way, since city gates are not usually involved in offensive operations, and in fact should pose no threat to the church at all. Rather, it would appear to be the Church which poses a direct mortal threat to the gates of Hades-- a danger so real that those gates will not prevail against her.
This point is important because it will profoundly affect the posture taken with regard to the world-system and society by the church. The fortress outlook can be seen in action in the monastic ideal, particularly in the earlier days of its formulation.30 Monasticism represents a flight from secular culture that can not be justified in view of the central role that love of others is to play in the ethical life of the church.
Such a flight can only be explained as a statement of ethical prioritization. The dangers of sin contamination are seen to be greater on balance than any benefit that might result from admixture of the faithful with the world system.
Although the monastic movement is an extreme example, (and easy to understand for that reason) it is hardly unique. There are lesser forms of fortress theology applications evident in mainline fundamentalism today as well. The main point is that sins of omission tend to be viewed by this type of theology as less evil than sins of commission. Yet if the prioritizing of ethics taught by Christ is accepted, omitting to practice love would be a very serious sin, while an act of passion such as cursing would be comparatively unimportant.31
We conclude then by finding that a truly biblical ethic should issue in, "faith working through love," (Gal. 5:6). Any system which ostensibly follows the letter of the law in the Old or New Testaments, while making it possible to hide one's true failings behind a mask of perfunctory nomism is decidedly sub-biblical in tone. The failure of negative "sin avoidance" ethical systems is that the real issues in biblical ethics are lost amidst a forest of unintelligible detail, until it is possible for a camel to slide unnoticed down our throat.
Contact Dennis with a comment or question
Return to the Ethics table of contents
Browse the Endnotes for "Ethics"
