Meeting an Author
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 90] |
Several months ago I resolved to do a series of articles on "the new morality." It seemed to me that, as commandos of Christ, we ought to face up to the questions being raised a little more honestly than most of us had been doing. I decided that I would especially analyze two books--Christian Morals Today, by John A. T. Robinson, and Situation Ethics, by Joseph Fletcher. At the time I had no idea I would ever meet either man personally, but while I was at Harvard, an opportunity was presented to go to Episcopal Theological School, in Cambridge, and sit in upon a two hour discussion on "Verbal Tools in Christian Ethics," by Dr. Fletcher.
When I was introduced to him I learned that he already knew about my presence in the city, and he welcomed me to the seminar. I had supposed that I would meet a relatively youthful professor of "the swinging type," scoffing at the mores of traditional Christianity and whittling opponents down to size with a rapier-like wit, while making a play for the girls in the class. Imagine my surprise to be confronted by a genial, almost gnome-like gentleman, more than sixty-five years old, dressed in a conservative gray suit and wearing a subdued blue-striped shirt with a rather unevenly knotted polka dot bow tie. He possessed a cheerful smile and radiated good cheer which endeared him to the students.
The theme had to do with what Dr. Fletcher called "Pauline ethics," and followed the familiar route traversed by most liberal theologians, postulating a difference between the ethical teachings of Jesus and those of the apostle to the gentiles. It was suggested that the gospel writers were not concerned with a theological approach, but simply with narrative. They collected the ethical teachings of Jesus and from them compiled "the sermon on the mount."
Paul's ethics cannot be understood at all, according to Dr. Fletcher, without understanding his idea of salvation. In dealing with the matter the professor conceived it was his task to point out the problems, and not resolve them. He confessed that he had not found a satisfactory answer to all of them, but because of his age he had no time left for messing around with non-controversial issues.
I shall not bore my readers with details, but will mention a few items of interest to me. It was argued that Paul faced the problem of how to avoid legalism on the one hand and antinomianism on the other, or how to transcend the letter and preserve the spirit, that is, the intent or value concerns of Christ. Paul concluded that Christ was "the end of the law for righteousness," but by law here is meant merely "rules for righteousness." This was superseded by the law of Christ, which is love, and not codal prescriptions to be swallowed like medicine.
It was suggested that the new covenant invites Christians to accept the vulnerability and jeopardy of freedom, never obeying any law simply for the law's sake. Grace was set in the Torah's stead, but many preferred to stick close to a custodian or tutor and be children. Here they took no risk and accepted no blame. But to avoid such irresponsibility, God wrote the new law in our minds, internalizing it so that now righteousness is incorporated in our persons rather than in a code.
In contrasting Jesus and Paul it was suggested that Jesus assumed the moral capacity of men, and took them seriously as men, laying blame on them and holding them responsible for not hearing the prophets. On the other hand, Paul took man's incapacity more seriously than did the gospels. Man can will what is right but cannot do it. Jesus said men were responsible and should be challenged and judged. Paul regarded men as helpless and said they needed help.
It was further said that Paul was concerned with sin generically, that is, with root sin. Jesus was concerned with sin specifically, dealing with acts of sin,
[Page 91] |
I asked the professor if there was a difference in the way Jesus regarded love (agape), and the way Paul regarded it, seeing that Jesus said the law and the prophets were suspended from it, while Paul said the whole law was fulfilled in it. He thought that both might have regarded it alike. This seemed to me to lessen any supposed area of divergence as to ethics.
I further asked Dr. Fletcher to define love as he used the term. He said that philosophically agape was a radical divine and human commitment, but for a working definition he preferred to think of it as concern for persons. He insisted that it was an act of will, and thus was rational and volitional, rather than emotional.
He graciously asked me to explain my personal view of agape to the students and I did so. I suggested that if Jesus and Paul were present and could be questioned any apparent difference in their view of ethical behavior might melt away. We are always limited in an attempt to understand even those with whom we can converse and even more so when we examine what was written by or about them.
It was noticeable that the students were very penetrating in their questions and did not hesitate to pursue their investigations even to the point of embarrassment for the teacher. They showed every evidence of wanting to search for truth, and were not inclined to accept any theory or system without carefully scrutinizing it from all angles. After the two hour session was finished I made it a point to meet some of the future candidates for the Anglican clergy and found them very interested in our own approach to the Christian faith.
My analysis of situational ethics will be made available in this paper later on. I am meeting the problem everywhere I go and I do not feel that we can either ignore it or set up a straw man and annihilate him under the guise of handling the issue. We trust that you will continue to read MISSION MESSENGER this year.