Theology

The Problem of Moralism According to Alister McGrath

“Christ is the supreme human example, who evinces an authentically human lifestyle which we are […]

MM / 9.30.09

/

8

“Christ is the supreme human example, who evinces an authentically human lifestyle which we are alleged to be capable of imitating. Such a view is not merely adequate as an exposition of the significance of Jesus Christ, but is unrealistic in its estimation of the capacities and inclinations of human nature. It is an ethic addressed to an idealized humanity, which does not correspond to humanity as we empirically know it, and as we have been taught to view it by the Christian tradition, trapped in its predicament. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of sin is self-deception, a reluctance to accept the tragedy of our situation…This ‘moral example’ theory rests upon a totally unrealistic and un-Christian view of human nature.”

Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth (p. 42-43)

Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter

• Email

Δ

COMMENTS

8 responses to “The Problem of Moralism According to Alister McGrath”

1. Nathan says:

   09/30/2009 at 3:14 pm

   I agree with this, but aren't there New Testament suggestions that we are imitate Jesus? (Ephesians 5:1, Philippians 2:5, and their contexts, come to mind). Discuss.

   🙂

   Reply
2. Michael says:

   09/30/2009 at 4:44 pm

   This is just a tiny bit of McGrath, and I have not read it in context, which is always dangerous. But my guess is that he is referring to those who would attempt to separate the moral example of Jesus (which they acknowledge should be followed) from his claim to be Savior, Redeemer, and God (which they reject as non-essential and later additions to the Jesus-story). I don't think he is addressing in this particular quote those "moralists" inside the Christian community, but I may very well be wrong. That doesn't happen often, I admit, but this could be one of those rare occasions 🙂
   Nathan, Although I don't think McGrath has Christians in mind in this quote, I think his comments apply to many Christians as well, both from the left and the right. I read those NT passages you cite at face value: it is a good thing to imitate Jesus: we should all do it every hour. But these and all other NT exhortations presuppose that any desire to imitate Jesus, or any limited "success" we may have in doing so, is born out of hearts that are broken over and over again by gospel love and continuing forgiveness for "stuck" sinners, saved by grace.

   Reply
3. Don Carter says:

   09/30/2009 at 5:26 pm

   The only way in which we can "imitate" Jesus is by following His pattern of dependence on His Father for ability to do everything He did. It is impossible for us to do this perfectly, of course, but we can learn to do it more frequently with practice.

   Reply
4. Michael says:

   09/30/2009 at 5:46 pm

   Don– The only practice I get is in asking for forgiveness 🙂

   Reply
5. StampDawg says:

   09/30/2009 at 6:42 pm

   Like Michael says, we don't have in this quote the full context of McGrath's comments.

   But one thing to bear in mind is that one of the many Atonement Theories is the Moral Exemplar Theory — which is basically EXACTLY what McGrath is describing.

   By the way, an absolutely wonderful book by Fitz Allison is THE RISE OF MORALISM. The section on Jeremy Taylor is not to be believed.

   Reply
6. dpotter says:

   09/30/2009 at 7:24 pm

   Thanks Matt. Have you (or anyone else out there) ready McGrath's book on the theology of the cross? I tried to read it in seminary, but could never find the time to get beyond a few pages here and there.

   Reply
7. Matt McCormick says:

   09/30/2009 at 8:10 pm

   Hey Dylan! Hope you are well. Like you…a few pages and sections here and there…At the moment I am working through Ebeling. Stampdawg! Great book recommendation 🙂

   Reply
8. M. Staneck says:

   09/30/2009 at 9:03 pm

   Luther's "Two Kinds of Righteousness" in his Great Galatians Commentary may help Nathan out with his question. It's all about making the proper distinctions.

   Reply