Christian Ethics, Don’t Try This at Home
While in Hawaii last week—about which I’ll write more later—I read William Willimon’s thought-provoking book on clergy ethics, Calling and Character: Virtues of the Ordained Life. He writes specifically to those ordained for ministry, but because of the difficulty it is within the Body of Christ to distinguish one member’s ethical responsibilities from another’s, much of what Willimon writes is relevant to the whole Church. I appreciate greatly how he describes the necessity of community in order to practice Christian ethics.
We ought to placard over all Christian ethics, “DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME.” That is, do not try to live nonviolently, simply, or graciously without a community strong enough to back you up in such endeavors. Do not try to be extraordinarily faithful apart from a community that is extraordinarily forgiving. Violence, servility to the powers, and deceit come quite naturally to us. The lone individual, attempting to stand alone is no match for the subtle and persistent pressures of the empire. Do not attempt to protect the life of the unborn apart from a community that assumes responsibility for those who are ill equipped to have children in isolation and loneliness. It is the church that makes Christian ethics make sense. (86-87)
I’ll likely post a few quotations over the next few weeks since I found Calling and Character especially invigorating and thought-provoking. But anyone who has read or listened to Willimon will not be surprised that I found the book thought-provoking.
I like it. I haven’t read Willimon in a decade, but I have a lot of respect for him.
Comment by Bill — February 25, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I agree that community is important, but it seems to me that by prescribing all kinds of requirements for practicing virtue, Willimon puts the cart before the horse, and runs the risk of guiding us into inaction. To write, “do not try to live nonviolently, simply, or graciously without a community strong enough to back you up in such endeavors” is to, in effect, say that without a strong community, don’t bother to try to live nonviolently or simply or graciously, and the same could be said for his other prescriptions. What if I don’t have a community that’s extraordinarily forgiving? Am I not even to make the attempt to be extraordinarily faithful? I understand that it’s harder to do these things without a strong community, so I appreciate the advice, but to add the advantages of strong community as necessary requirements seems to me to be a misstep. I particularly dislike the sentence “Do not attempt to protect the life of the unborn apart from a community that assumes responsibility for those who are ill equipped to have children in isolation and loneliness.” Again, a community of this sort would be wonderful, but to prescribe inaction apart from such a community is like saying do not attempt to feed hungry children apart from communities that assume responsibility for the economic and climate conditions which make the delivery of food to the poor difficult. It is to, in effect, say that we should not do great things until it is safe for us to do so, and I think that framing such prescriptions in terms of necessity puts us on the road to inaction.
Comment by Timbo — February 26, 2009 @ 11:52 am
I think I got the comment thing fixed. Timbo, I don’t know why my blog wouldn’t just publish your comment. Sorry about that.
Timbo, am I reading you correctly when you say that Willimon is putting the cart before the horse meaning that you would argue ethical communities require ethical persons first? I am sympathetic to that idea, but to use another popular metaphor, I think the matter is more of the chicken and the egg. What comes first, the community of believers or believers themselves? I’ll get back to this point below.
I don’t think Willimon leads us to inaction. Willimon, following traditionalists like MacIntyre and Hauerwas, pushes Christians toward a community-based faith rather than an individual one. These theologians see dangerous effects in the Church when Christians adopt the modernist idea of the individual standing over and apart from the community.
I think Willimon pushes us toward responsibility and action within our faith communities. This comes back to the chicken and egg question. I agree with him that Christian ethics don’t make much sense without the Church because, from my reading of Scripture, Jesus’ mission was to gather a people to himself. He calls people to follow him, but he also calls them to follow him in community. The ethical demands Jesus makes to us are as communities. The Bible, from my understanding, pushes me to identify myself as a member of that community of faith and to act ethically therein.
Willimon is being provocative here. I can appreciate your point that some may read it as, “If I’m not a part of a (strong) community, I’m off the hook.” But as many Christians can testify, to try to live ethically alone is nearly impossible without the encouragement and accountability of the community. Willimon’s point is more, if you want to make sure you embody Christian ethics, you better be sure to be a part of a community that will encourage and support you. His exhortation wouldn’t be to let people off the hook, but to get them to participate fully in a strong community.
Comment by Tyler Watson — February 26, 2009 @ 3:03 pm