'cont from "To practice non-judment"...
(Bishop John Shelby Spong, RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM, Harper, C1991, P23)
It needs to be noted that in the Yahwist version of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34), there is no reference to God having rested on the seventh-day as the justification for the observance of Sabbath. The reason for this omission is obvious to biblical scholars because the seven-day creation story of Genesis 11-24 had not yet been written. It was a much later work of art.
(ibid. p46)
This is not to say that the Ten Commandments do not offer some good ethical advise, or that they were not inspired in some way; but, they are only a crude beginning toward a purer ethic which Jesus, as well as others, delivered to us later on. And Bishop Spong reminds us
Sometimes even the most straightforward moral directions are, on further study, not so simple after all. For example, most people believe that the Bible states without equivocation, particularly in the Ten Commandments, that murder is wrong, bearing false witness is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong. There is no question here about the meaning of these Bible imperatives - Right? Wrong!
What the Bible really says is THAT THESE THINGS ARE WRONG FOR A JEW TO DO TO A JEW, but a close reading of these texts will reveal that when a Jew dealt with their enemies, then, lying, killing, stealing and raping were all acceptable forms of behavior.
(John Shelby Spong, LIVING IN SIN, 1988, p114)
The Old Testament is full of examples that support Spong's observation. In Numbers, Chapter 31, God allows the Jews to steal the Midianites cattle, flocks and goods (verse 9), burn their cities (verse 10), allowed men to keep virgins for themselves (verse 1. So this idea of exception to Divine Law is built into the sacred works which convey it. It actually makes the so-called Law of God, subject to the interpretation of men - which begs the question How could it be Divine Law?
This leads us to one of the problems we have with present theology. That is, Jesus' advocacy of better ethics was interpreted by many to mean more laws. But, these laws often take a negative approach to morality, being based upon what we shouldn't do; rather than, what we should be doing. This can lead to a psychological suggestion, which implies that when we avoid the infractions of this code, it somehow makes us good. And when we see true goodness, it becomes relegated to special individuals such as saints or prophets. But what does that say about our personal potential to be the best we can be.
The gospels seem to actually rebuke the idea of a religion of "Thou shall not," replacing such with a suggested ethic based upon love, personal responsibility and action. The same is true of the sacred writings and myths of many other religious ideals.
If the modern Christian Church was doing its job correctly, according to the example of its founder there should be no hungry. It surely seems we have built and maintain enough ornate houses of worship, resources that could feed many people. If religions were doing their jobs, sick people would have access to medicine no matter what their economic state. Children would be born to warm loving homes. Our resources would be better used in an effort to preserve the quality of life for future generations. We would have a sense of community where self-gratification was less important than community accomplishment.
Our negative emphasis has us worrying so much about going to hell that we do not see the hell on earth that plagues hundreds of millions of people. From starvation to war, the present theology isn't working. Even our doctrines of salvation feed our selfishness, for it is more about the eternal reward of heaven, than, loving for the sake of love. In a sense, so many of the present teachings imply that God needs to bribe us in order for us to obey Her so-called law.
Too often, telling people what they shouldn't do only serves to make them less responsible for what they do do.
If one were to reflect for a moment, if we are doing the right thing, we need have no fear of the doing the wrong thing. Simple avoidance of the wrong thing makes no assurance that what we are doing is good. The scriptures and myths say this over and over, giving us insight into the ethical behavior connected with goodness and spirituality. The gospels deliver to us a wonderful formula for an ethic based upon love expressed in the way we live our lives.
Religion needs to shift its approach toward morality by turning the emphasis from avoidance, to responsibility. This is not to say we should tell people what to do, any more than telling them what not to do. But a responsible Christian theology needs to encourage us to follow, according to our culture and times, the path Jesus demonstrated by example. Our religions emphasize Jesus as God, seemingly forgetting he was man. Religion often gives the impression that the emulation of Jesus is more of a blasphemy; than using such an ideal as an example from which we could build our ethics.
Theology needs to encourage virtue instead of rules, facing the reality of the "complete human being," which is a combination of animal, ego-consciousness, and spirit. True morality is more about what is going on in the reality of the world; not, our spoken words and platitudes. When laws are passed which are not felt in the human heart, people will circumvent them. Prohibition is just one example, divorce another, and there are hundreds of others.
Theology needs to approach morality from a completely different perspective if it is to aid in the spiritual development of mankind. Our present systems are often not adequate to aid in a spiritual evolution that is keeping up with our intellectual evolution. Our relationship with God is still based upon the fear and superstition of our ancestors of many years ago
Ancient man knew, as even some animals do, that you can sometimes pacify a threatening enemy by leaving him some of your food. Fearing these threatening powers of fire, water and air, ancient man would leave some food for the god-enemy. Thus did man make his first sacrifice to the god-enemy in an effort to pacify him as he would other enemies, man or beast...
Prayers and tributary worship began in man's fear of the god-enemy; they were born of animal instinctive offerings to an unknown and seemingly powerful creature...
Men still want to appease God by swaying their beards and praising His Grace. Incense and smoke still rise from the altars' and candles are set where they imagine the god-enemy to be dwelling, and where with a little offering (Now of coin instead of grain and meat) they hope to appease him as of old.
(Dagobert Runes, ON THE NATURE OF MAN, Philosophical Library, 1956, pp36-3
We need to break this theological trend of God being the wrathful god-enemy who waits for us to break some aspect of Her Divine Law. We need to evolve, seeing God as the loving Father which Jesus portrayed. Our morals should evolve to a point where we need no laws to be religious because our messiahship is so important that we wouldn't think of intentionally offending God, another human being or creation.
Morality isn't about laws; it's about how we affect others, how we interact with the creation. Morality is about our personal participation in the ethic of Love so profoundly demonstrated in the life of Jesus.
The seat of immorality is not our sexual preoccupation; it is in a society that allows children to be malnourished. Immorality is not a breaking of the laws, it's the indifference of human beings to the plights of the poor, elderly and the sick. It is not an external force such as the devil, which makes us evil; it is our own greed and obsession with self-gratification.
The myths, sacred writings and the gospels are the inspired work of the Divine, but we must look at them in a symbolism which applies to us, not view them as our ancestors did. The universal messages they contain are much more profound then the code of "Thou shall nots" we so often emphasize from them. Love, respect, and a sense of personal messiahship need to replace the fear driven codes that are so full of projection, otherness, and indifference to human need.
It is not enough, according to Jesus, to love only those who are like us. We must reach out in sincerity to those who differ, even our enemies
You have learned that our forefathers were told, "Do not commit murder; anyone who commits murder must be brought to judgment" But what I tell you is that anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgment. If he abuses his brother he must answer for it to the court; if he sneers at him he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell.
(Matthew 522)
You have learned that they were told, "eye for Eye, tooth for tooth." But what I tell you is this Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. It someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the left. It a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. If a man in authority makes you go one mile, go with him two. Give when you are asked to give, and do not turn your back on a man who wants to borrow.
You have learned they you were told, "love your neighbor, hate your enemy." But what I tell you is this Love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father who makes his sun rise on the good and bad alike, and sends His rain on the honest and dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Surely, the tax-gatherers do as much as that. And if you greet only your brother, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds.
(Matt 538-4
These simple concepts and ideals, the ethics for the basis of morality, are repeated throughout the gospels. The letter of the law is replaced with an ethic of purity of heart that knows no bounds. Morality becomes a way of life that is driven by a pure ethic of love. Such an ethic transcends law, having its origins in the Divine Itself.
I give you a new commandment LOVE ONE ANOTHER; as I have loved you, so you are to love one another.
(John 1334)
This is the direction religion needs to head in if it is to become a positive influence in our world. Morals, rituals, words, and faith are all useless if they do not promote spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is felt; not professed. True spirituality is in the way we live our lives; not in what we profess to believe. Our love for God is expressed in the treatment of what is of God, not in our songs, works of art or words of adoration!
Love, as Jesus demonstrated it, is the basic ethic we need to be moral. If we based our decisions in life on love, we would be much less apt to make irresponsible choices.
The parable of "The Good Samaritan" (Luke 1025-37) gives us insight into the kind of love that Jesus demonstrated. It is a love of caring, compassion, mercy, and personal responsibility, which is unrequited; that is, it seeks nothing in return.
When the lawyer asked Jesus "and who is my neighbor?'' Jesus makes it clear that anyone in need, and whom we can help, is in fact our personal responsibility.
When we talk about love here, we are not talking about the shallow definition that the word has taken upon itself today. The love, as Jesus used it, was the term 'agape', which is an unrequited love that God has demonstrated for mankind.
The ethic of love, first and foremost, involves removing the plank from our own eye; that is, removing the rationalizations, projections and justifications for our own selfish pursuits. We need self-objectivity with a genuine concern for how our actions are affecting others and creation. Egocentricity is a healthy part of the human being and its needs should be addressed by every human. But that egocentric drive needs something to keep it in check; otherwise, it leads to selfish indifference. This is not to say that ego-driven desires are evil or selfish, but, in love, they do not become a priority where the ends justify the means. In fact, in the love of which we speak, there becomes a genuine desire to share our good fortune with the whole - for the happier the whole can be, the better for the individual selves of that whole. But in the end, we need to be objective about ourselves in order to avoid self-deceit from the ego.
Once we have removed the plank from our own eye, we need to think about the consequences of our actions. Are they responsible; will someone be hurt or cheated or suffer; could someone benefit; what is the effect of a particular act on those around me, on the whole are all questions that we should contemplate. From our daily business activities, to our sexual affairs, to dealing with the social problems of our societies our realistic self-examination is important.
In the Catholic Church, they have what they call an examination of conscience before one confesses their sins. It's designed to help the penitent remember his or her sins. Likewise, a responsible theology will encourage a self-examination, but it would be "before" we embark upon an act, weighing an action's affect on things around us. Sorrow for wrongs can be a good thing, for we can learn from it. But a more ideal state is, careful consideration of the consequences of our acts before we need to be sorry for them.
Responsibility and motivation are relevant factors that determine consequences. Self-examination is a key to such responsibility, which will always help to improve motivation. When we are motivated by our effect upon others, or even our world, we are less likely to have an adverse effect than if we operate only in self-interest. Paradoxically, if we act with the whole in mind the self always gains, because the better the whole the better the state for the self, and when we are in the realm of paradox we are in the realm of God.
This is not to say that we as human beings can operate with a constant awareness of the whole picture, or, that we might always be aware of the consequences of our acts. For one thing, our perception is too limited for that. Another is that ego requires attention if it is to be healthy. But what the myths and scriptures of all religions tell us is that we can be motivated by certain virtues, that if cultivated, would allow us to be more responsible to that which is around us, even if it's only at an unconscious level.
Love, mercy, compassion, generosity, empathy, and self-objectivity are all virtues that are preached in the gospels, which are, in a sense, the moral ethics by which we can live a moral life. Our religious values actually become immoral when we use them to stand in opposition to these virtues - as in being judgmental, indifferent, projectionary, or use love in a selfish manner.
Again, Jesus gave a very good example of a way we can conduct this self-examination when he said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" This should be our first lesson in self-examination. If each of us asked, 'would we like done to us what we are doing to another'; our social interactions would definitely change. We would not be so apt to hurt or take advantage of those we deal with.
A moral code based purely upon an ethic of love is not easy step for theology. It not only means that religions must admit they cannot speak for God, but as the popular Psychiatrist Scott Peck redefines love as being about sacrifice, responsibility, and hard work
Everyone in our culture desires to some extent to be loving, yet many are not in fact loving. I therefore conclude that the desire to love is not itself love. LOVE IS AS LOVE DOES. LOVE IS AN ACT OF WILL - namely, both an intention and an action.
(Scott Peck, THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED, Simon &Schuster, 1978, p83)
If an act is not one of work or courage, then it is not an act of love. There are no exceptions.
(ibid. p120)
The ethic that we are postulating grounds religion in a much more difficult role then its present system of defining what is moral or immoral. Its role is not one of judgement of what is right or wrong according to the law of God, but rather, encouraging people to pursue their own relationship with God in a moral way that is in accordance with their own unique lifestyle. It allows homosexuals to be homosexuals, the unmarried to be unmarried, the atheist to be atheist, so long as they do not force themselves upon others - treating all of them with the same respect we would wish to be treated with.
Make no mistake about it, there are truly evil people in the world who murder, rape, cheat, and plunder - but these are the business of civil law and the society which controls it. Religion is the foundation upon which a just man builds to become a better man; not a legislative body declaring God's law. It is the job of religion to foster the motifs of the sacred writings that they might be useful at a personal level in order that an individual might spiritually grow.
Moral codes are cultural and social, never being natural or Divine. In fact, the animal law of natural survival would be considered immoral from most human perspectives, and yet, this is the very law, which God chose to dominate creation. And this is as it should be, for God in His wisdom has surely given the best of Herself that He can give.
And as it should be, because of God's great gifts to us, She would be right in expecting more from us. Whereas the cat that is going to eat the bird takes advantage of the opportunity, we can choose and actually make our own opportunities. The responsibility lies in doing such in a responsible manner, which respects all things as being of God.
***eclecticchurch.org ethics-vs-laws
Peace and LOVE,
lilyfleur
