In an attempt to put the election season in an eternal perspective, I’ve been listening to a wonderful (if not somewhat depressing) podcast from PBS called “God in America,” which chronicles the entire complex history of American self-identity with respect to religion. Repeated throughout the show is the argument that America–through its unique blend of religious piety and baptized self-reliance (infant and adult)–has become “the most religiously diverse nation on the planet.” However, despite this outward diversity, over the six hours of listening , what struck me was how uniform the underlying American religious impulse is. Sure, there are countless denominations and churches and religions, but deep down, are they really that different? I’m not so sure.
400 years or so before Jesus, Aristotle argued that hard work, determination and the cultivation of the virtues would result in a new hexis—a new state of being—that would result in eudemonia: “your best life now.” This cultivation, otherwise known as mimetic participation in the good—practicing a pleasant expression, for instance—would actually create this good within you, and was the key to happiness.
Therefore, when Jesus is read as a good Aristotelian, his otherwise damning pronouncement in Matthew 5:48, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” becomes the great cosmic finish line in the sky, thus setting the boundaries for our so-called “Faith Journey”(or some other similarly meaningless phrase). And, since this Greek word that is often translated as “perfect”—telos—can be understood as an end, culmination, as the “acme of perfection,” it is almost universally argued, that Jesus is pointing people towards the end, towards Dante’s Beatrice and the Beatific Vision. The Good Life, then, becomes a process of progression towards that goal. What looks like religious diversity is really more of a disagreement over direction and emphasis, but within the same system of eudaimonistic salvation, the same religion: faith + works=happiness.
Today, it seems as if the main distinction between many competing Christian denominations, not to mention other religious institutions, is not found in contradictory ideas about the way God and humanity are related, but only disagreements about the telos. For Spiritual Hippies, the end will be realized in community and inclusion, for Preps, purification and cleansing, but they both agree on one thing: we participate with God so we can become something: better, cleaner, more loving, less judgmental, less materialistic, more spiritual, more holy, less individualistic, more aware of our brokenness, more hospitable, less angry, etc and so forth and so on—ad nauseam.
1st Church/Temple/Ashram/or E-Center of Wherever—in this system, whether through the sacraments, spiritual encounters, social activism, labyrinths, aestheticism, sweat lodges, mystic encounters and/or, proscribed obedience—becomes the place where the path is laid out, the goal set before us, and our wills are prodded, pushed and pulled towards the beautiful, towards the telos. Sound familiar? It should; this is our lives under the law.
From our perspective, this is why the distinction between law and gospel is so important, because otherwise the means and the ends are are confused and mixed, and we begin to believe that the “good news” is that we are on our way rather than the end has come. Under this misconception, we begin to worry about our “spiritual growth” by viewing the cross as an entry to a Christian life understood as “practice makes perfect,” rather than seeing it as the necessary (and inescapable!) death of that very idea.
While sin remains, the law—no matter how beautiful or lofty—will never be something to which we conform, but will be always accusing, always condemning, always a curse. Not because it is evil, but because of its very beauty. Under this curse, driven by the “greater good,” we are condemned to work towards our own telos with Jesus playing the ever stern but caring Mick to our Rocky. Slavery to the law condemns us to reliance on our jobs, our families, our ethnicities, our looks, our socioeconomics, our education, our politics, our churches and whatever else we can think of to defend who we are and what we do before God. Naturally, we will work tirelessly towards these ends; mercifully, the end has already come in Jesus.
The Gospel, as distinct from the law, is not a path, a system, a journey or a partnership to be joined, but a proclamation that is true and worthy of all people to be believed: Christ is the the end—the telos–of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Thanks be to God.
[youtube=www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU&w=600]
COMMENTS
15 responses to “In Law We Trust, or The Tie That Binds Spiritual Hippies and Religious Preppies”
Leave a Reply
Haven't seen this yet, but weren't some modern-day Calvinists like Mark Driscoll interviewed? I know there's differences between the Lutheran interpretation and that of Calvin, but I would think that, in the first instance, Driscoll and others wouldn't appear overly legalistic.
Hey Matt—I've only listened to the audio podcast, so maybe the video has something else, but I know that there are, certainly, exceptions to the general trend. . . no question!
I wasn't trying to indict ALL of American Christianity (particularly since I'm part of it:), but using the religious impulse to buttress a point–
I've probably overstated the case, but then, that wouldn't be the first time:)
Thanks for commenting!
Jady – I don't doubt at all that the doc shows a lot of law-based Christianity. That's par for the course – sad, but true.
Jady,
I would love to give you an AMEN!
I am certainly no Greek scholar, but I understand from reading many who are, that, unfortunately for those on all sides of the debate concerning the meaning of Jesus as the 'end' of the law, 'telos' is an ambiguous Greek word. Would that it were all cut and dried.
Yeah, this is good.
I've never been convinced by this kind of argument. It seems to me you're making a conflict Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church into the fundamental principle distinguishing Christianity from every other kind of religious thought. Never mind that plenty of religion don't even have a notion of God's judgment. Some, if they do, don't view God's judgment in such black and white terms as 100% perfection or 100% condemnation.
Whatever the merits of the classical Lutheran-evangelical ideas about salvation, painting such a broad stroke over all other religious philosophies oversimplifies things extremely. And at least my own personal experience with close friends reveals a much more complex landscape of religious thought.
Hey Michael,
As always, your comments help clarify and get to the heart of the matter.
You've pointed out a traditional flaw in any sort of "this is what the Greek says" argument, but I don't think that how you interpret "Christ is the telos of the Law" has anything to do with how you translate the word, but whether you are reading it within an Aristotelian framework or not.
Just another example of how hermeneutics–particularly the way one interprets/understands the concepts of sin, flesh, law—makes all the difference!
But, I'm with you: I wish it had bee a little clearer too!
Dear Jameson,
Thanks for the comments. Whether I've convinced you or not, I'm glad that I was clear enough for you to see what I was saying!
As I'm sure you know, there is a certain necessary oversimplification that is intrinsic to blogs, I think–at least ones that people will actually read. But, I do think that what I've said holds water, but I may be overlooking a hole or two! We'll see;-)
A few thoughts:
First, as for reading things through Luther, well, I don't mind that charge. I don't know how much of Luther you've actually read, but in my experience, most people throw out "that's just Luther," the same way people throw around labels like "Calvinist," or "liberal," or "hermaphrodite" etc. . . there may be some truth behind these statements, but more often than not they are based/founded on misinformation.
In your case, you are not misinformed about my appreciation of Luther's thought! However, it should go without saying, we're all trying to be faithful to the actual Christian message and not the particular anachronistic/personal viewpoint of any given theologian. Except for me, of course, I fully expect a church to form around my teachings after I'm dead—just kidding:)
Ok, lets look at your comments:
Never mind that plenty of religion don't even have a notion of God's judgment. Some, if they do, don't view God's judgment in such black and white terms as 100% perfection or 100% condemnation.
This is certainly true, but I didn't say anything (in this post, at least:) about God's active judgment–only the beauty/curse of an unattainable law.
What I mean is that ANY existence of demand from beyond (even the demand to rid yourself of all demand) is a law of the "good."
Aside: I know this is a narrow definition, and I certainly think that w/in Christianity the Law has more than this connotation, but it also includes this narrow sense as well.
In this respect, I'd be interested to know what religions don't have any sense of "judgment" meaning it is better to be farther down the "road to shangri la" than not. Certainly not the big'uns: Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism (or Christianity, for that matter).
I would be interested to hear what religions don't have a concept of law as understood this way? To my knowledge, Mahāyāna Buddhism, with its concept of "nothingness"–Śūnyatā–comes closest to a "religion" (although they wouldn't call it that) without classical metaphysical categories; however, there is still a concept of judgment along eudaemonistic lines.
Śūnyatā is something that is to be preferred over non-Śūnyatā, because it is there that the self is emptied, but what is it emptied of? The urge, quest, drive,etc for a telos. I would go so far as to say that I fully affirm the Buddhist impulse to get beyond the law, in this respect, but would disagree with the means.
In fact, I think my extremely broad brush is big enough! It is not that Christianity is so different in its fundamental makeup, as there IS a terminus a quo(dead in trespasses and sins) and a terminus ad quem (blessedness, etc), but it is different in the means by which this continuum is traversed.
So, I guess I would be interested in hearing how this broad stroke oversimplifies to a fault? That there is are complex and almost limitless variations on this theme of "life as progression towards a goal" (even when progression is viewed as regression:) is clear, but does this mean that there is no unifying thread?
Essentially, I'm arguing that Original Sin, if it can be understood as universal in any way, has manifested itself as slavery to the Law as most clearly articulated by Aristotle with his concepts of hexis/mimesis and eudamonism. We are slaves to the "good" that we cannot attain, but, the cross revealed, as foreshadowed in Jesus'question–Why do you call me good?–that the true good, i.e.,non-eudamonistic, was never what we were interested in to begin with.
So, that's how I see it. If I'm wrong, (which I might be, but look out for flying pigs:) let me know!
Fondly,
Jady
Jady: excellent post. You are exactly right to point out (and challenge) the Aristotelian roots that run very deep with in biblical interpretation and Christianity. The concept of 'on our way' or 'progressive sanctification' or 'cooperation with God' are all very Aristotelian in nature. For Aristotle (as you know) the actuality of a person has priority over the possibility, which is a fancy way of saying that each human is directed toward an 'end' that is 'better' than where they started. Life becomes a journey towards (self)actualization. When this line of thinking gets adopted into Christian theology/biblical interpretation, you get 'progressive sanctification' or 'journeying towards God' (ref. Norris Clarke's "Person and Being" a commentary on Aquina's understanding of moving toward the Beatific Vision). Here are two thoughts I have about Aristotelian imagery of 'progress' and (self)'actualization': 1. the progressive/journeying imagery implies that the Cross and Justification are not the once and for all, complete event that reconciles man and God. It becomes a 'door' from where we start and move beyond. But we cannot move 'beyond' our justification and the cross; Jesus is the 'telos' and that 'telos' has moved toward us, not us toward it ("mercifully, the end has already come in Jesus"). And, 2, the idea of progress and journey actual (in my opinion) minimize the weight of the Law. Rather than the Law functioning in such a way as to drive me to (and back to) the Cross, it becomes something that i can do (that i can master) and by this doing and mastery I am demonstrating my improvement. But, and maybe this is merely experience talking, I believe that the longer I'm Christian and the more I hear the Law and Gospel preached, the weightier the Law feels in that I am made increasingly more and more aware of my falling short of it. Subsequently, I am made more and more aware of my desperate need for Jesus and His cross and His light burden. This seems less like progress in the way that we typically understand 'progress'–as becoming 'more' self-actualized, better (etc).
anyway, I think you (Jady) are touching on something very important. Well done. Really. Thanks for posting this.
Jady– I think how one translates the word 'telos' makes all the difference. Of course, the English word 'end' is also ambiguous, so one can and most all translations do simply transfer the ambiguity into the English by using this word, which is actually the fair way to do it. Then we can all argue endlessly over whether our 'clarifications' of the inherent ambiguity within the text are 'Aristotelian' or Lutheran or Calvinist or Catholic or whatever. As long as we are all honest about the ambiguity, it's a fair fight 😉
Michael,
In fitting with the topic, I'll make a distinction between "translate" and "interpret." I think that how we "translate" telos–end, fulfillment, "acme of perfection," (and 1,000 others from the BDAG lexicon) is not nearly as important as how we interpret it.
All of these translations can easily and legitimately be fit into any number of competing interpretive frameworks, all will be faithful to the "linguistic range" inherent to the word, but get us no closer to a final, agreed upon meaning.
So, that's what I mean. The fight is indeed fair when people recognize that "the bible says_____" is more complicated than it first may appear, but this fight is usually only worth it when the combatants (to stick with the analogy) agree that what the bible says matters at all!
AMEN