Thoughts on faith in the context of the moral and the ethical
"Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" -Philippians
2:12
Read: Genesis 22: 1-18
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) was a profound
and prolific writer in the Danish "golden age" of intellectual and artistic
activity. His work crosses the boundaries of philosophy, theology,
psychology, literary criticism, devotional literature and fiction.
Kierkegaard brought this potent mixture of discourses to bear as social
critique and for the purpose of renewing Christian faith within Christendom.
At the same time he made many original conceptual contributions to each of
the disciplines he employed. He is known as the "father of existentialism",
but at least as important are his critiques of Hegel and of the German
romantics, his contributions to the development of modernism, his literary
experimentation, his vivid re-presentation of biblical figures to bring out
their modern relevance, his invention of key concepts which have been
explored and redeployed by thinkers ever since, his interventions in
contemporary Danish church politics, and his fervent attempts to analyze and
revitalize Christian faith.
Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in
Abraham when "God tempted [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son,
whom you love, and go to the land of Mariah and offer him as a burnt
offering on the mountain that I shall show you." Abraham had a choice to
complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the three and a
half day journey and to the loss of his son. "He said nothing to Sarah,
nothing to Eliezer-who, after all, could understand him, for did not the
nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of silence? He split the
firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife Because he kept
everything to himself in hiddenness he "isolated himself as higher than the
universal."
Kierkegaard says, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so
anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in
infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of their eternal
validity, and only then can by this virtue become a knight of faith. He
spoke about this kind of consciousness in an earlier book. "There comes a
moment in a person's life when immediacy is ripe, so to speak, and when the
spirit requires a higher form, when it wants to lay hold of itself as
spirit. As immediate spirit, a person is bound up with all the earthly life,
and now spirit wants to gather itself together out of this dispersion, so to
speak, and to transfigure itself in itself; the personality wants to become
conscious in its eternal validity. If this does not happen, if the movement
is halted, if it is repressed, then depression sets in.
Hebrews 11: 1,2 Biblical faith -FAITH IS A CERTAIN HOPE OR EXPECTATION THAT
GOD WILL DELIVER WHAT He has promised. "what we hope for" stated in the
Greek word "elpizomenon" refers to a sure hope or expectation
Notice that faith infers a certain hope corroborated by the word "certain"
in the next phrase, in what an individual accepts as true: the promise that
God will deliver one to eternal life or from temporal difficulties as the
context indicates. More precisely, FAITH IS A CERTAIN ACCEPTANCE AS TRUE
THAT GOD WILL DELIVER WHAT HE HAS PROMISED
According to Kierkegaard, Once Abraham became conscious of his eternal
validity he arrived at the door of faith and acted according to his faith.
In this action he became a knight of faith. In other words, one must give
up all his or her earthly possessions in infinite resignation and must also
be willing to give up whatever it is that he or she loves more than God.
Question: Compare Kierkagaard's concept of faith with the Biblical faith
stated here. Is the difference the focus of the person with faith or the
individual in which faith is placed? Could both be valid?
Over the millennia since the dawn of recorded history, human beings by their
very nature have questioned the exact nature of right and wrong. There are
those who hold to situational ethics, believing that the right and wrong are
largely dictated by the present circumstances. There are also those who
hold to a higher morality. The problem with an absolute morality is that
the right and the wrong are defined by a higher authority and given in
documentary form.
In terms of civil law, there is always the tension between the law as
written and the law as intended. Judges spend hours scrutinizing
constitutions and other high laws of the land in an effort to determine the
validity of a newly proposed legislation or regulation. Judges and juries
compare various questions of behavior, contract and intention with the
standards set forth in writing and try to render a fair judgment.
Question: Given the simplicity of situational ethics and the complexity of
moral standards, is it possible that an ethical approach to life is superior
to a moral approach to life? Under what circumstances would either approach
to decision making and social guidance faille and under what circumstances
would such systems tend to serve well?
When the concept of a Divine revelation dictates the right and the wrong,
the stakes of one's judgments as to the nature of those rights and wrongs
become more crucial as they then carry at least the potential of Divine
judgment and reward. In realization of the consequences of the revelation
of a Holy and Just God, The Bible does not teach in any way that individuals
absolutely must pay for the morally wrong, as all would fail the test.
Rather, The Bible simply asks that the individual accept a substitutionary
sacrifice of the Holy in payment for the wrongdoings of the individual,
understanding a simple desire on the part of that individual to follow God
instead of the ways of the world. In other words, have faith in Christ and
repent. Jesus Christ paid the price for sin. By accepting the payment for
sin's penalty and turning one's back on sin in preference to following
Christ, the soul is saved.
Question: In what ways was God's request of Abraham to offer his only son
Isaac as a burnt offering reminiscent of the offering of Christ on the
Cross? In what ways did the two differ? Compare the surrendering of the
self to Christ in faith to the offering of Isaac to God in faith.
Søren Kierkegaard outlined in his signature work "fear and Trembling:
Repetition" his thoughts on the struggles and actions which must have
transpired in the minds of and between Abraham and his beloved son Isaac as
they approached the moment of absolute sacrifice to God. Abraham's faith
faced challenges far more complex than the loss of his only son. The
offering required of him was by The God he had served his entire life and in
whom he had every reason to place faith and trust.
Now this offering tested the love of Abraham's son verses his love for his
god. The faith in that God must have been shaken for multiple reasons.
Question: Throughout Holy writ God stated repeatedly his command that no
person kill another. There are those modern scholars who would point out
that this law does not include killing in defense of the innocent such as in
home defense or military service. But then again, there are those who can
argue quite effectively that the ban on killing is absolute. There are
Christian denominations that adopt pacifism. In fact, killing is so
abhorant, that there are non religious pacifists. Was god within His rights
to require the killing of Isaac?
And then there is the troubling matter of Abraham failing to tell Isaac the
truth about the offering when the question was raised. While the answer
Abraham gave was quite true; God had provided the offering, it is doubtful
Isaac knew that he himself was to be offered. After all, he did ask where
the offering would come from.
Question: Did Abraham sin by failing to tell Isaac the entire truth and
thereby allow him to believe a lie?
Are there circumstances in which a lie is justifiable? Is this true
Biblically?
In the end run, Kierkegaard did in fact conclude that there is a Moral
suspension of the ethical. Where we as human beings might think a specific
action or belief as unethical in our human context, God is the originator of
the moral, being the author of Scripture. So while a human perspective an
action or belief might seem wrong, the fact that the action or belief fits
into a Divine plan justifies it. God told us it is wrong to kill, yet
destroyed Jericho and caused the great flood.
ON a more personal level, common sense tells us that the individual should
bear the responsibility for one's own behavior. But god forwent this human
conception of justice when Jesus Christ was offered as a sacrifice for the
payment of human sin. He states rather plainly through the new and old
testament that this was necessary because God's justice demanded atonement
for sin and yet His love demanded that humans be saved for a relationship
with Him. So everything ties neatly in this concept. By in faith accepting
God's moral suspension of the ethical on the part of the individual, the
individual secures a relationship with God in the person of Jesus Christ.
The individual accepts that God in his moral perrogative suspended his
ethical right to protect His only Son and thereby secured the salvation of
those He loved so dearly.
Questions: Can you think of other examples where people are asked to suffer
injustice for a greater good as Abraham did?
Abraham's faith demanded obedience of him, though he must certainly have
been mystified by what God had demanded of him. If Abraham could make such
a sacrifice and God having thusly been foreshadowed could sacrifice his only
begotten son, Is it reasonable for us to surrender to the lordship of
Christ and accept the offer of salvation despite the consequences that might
occure?
What could be considered contemporarily unethical about following Christ,
and is that suspension of the ethical justified?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaarhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entr
ies/kierkegaard/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling
http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Trembling-Repetition-Kierkegaards-Writings/dp/069
1020264
No comments:
Post a Comment