Larry Hart
Weighing Principles
The Rev. Robert Jeffress, Dallas Baptist pastor and Fox News Consultant, has received a good deal of media attention for his vigorous support of Donald Trump. Jeffress rather disingenuously claims that he does not identify as a Republican; but, nevertheless, votes Republican because, unlike Democrats, Republicans take the “right” moral stance on issues like abortion and religious freedom that rise, in his estimation, to the level of Biblical “first principles;” and which cannot, therefore, be compromised. Issues such as immigration policy, environmental regulation, tax rates and health care are, he argues, matters of opinion and compromise on these issues is entirely permissible. Jeffress’s ignorance of the sacred page and of moral theology is astounding. He, along with his friends Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, Jr., ought to be ashamed of their “mishandling” of Scripture (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
Conservative Christians, the argument goes, do not view all governmental policies as equal. Some policies are either entirely or largely pragmatic questions and place no serious moral obligation on professed Christians, and can be discussed, debated, and supported or denied without spiritual consequence. However, issues like abortion, marriage and religious freedom, it is argued, rise to the level of “first moral principles,” (serious Biblical imperatives) that may not be ignored, compromised, or dismissed as irrelevant by the man or woman of Christian faith.
Perhaps the first thing to note here is that the primary premise is correct in part, but not in whole: It is correct in observing that not all policies are equal since all policies are not based on or derived from first principles––secular or religious. All truth is true, but not all truth is of equal significance. This is in no way novel to conservative Christians, but rather is obvious to, not only pastors, priests, and theologians and teachers of moral philosophy, but to ordinary, even casual, Bible readers. For instance, Jesus tells the hyper critical and legalistic Pharisees (the conservatives), that they nitpick every coma and semicolon and make sure they tithe even the little herbs of their garden, “but have neglected the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law––justice and mercy and faith. These they ought to have done,” Jesus says, “without leaving the others undone.”
The conservative establishment denounced Jesus and his disciples because one Sabbath day when they were hungry the disciples pulled off heads of grain (technically harvested) as they walked through a farm field, rubbed the ears of grain in their hands (threshed it), and ate it; that is, they had worked on the Sabbath by harvesting and threshing. Jesus’s response is not to deny this is an infraction of the law, but rather to remind them that when David and his band were being pursued by King Saul’s soldiers, tired ,and hungry, and harried they stopped at the Holy Tabernacle where they ate the Bread of the Presence––the twelve displayed loaves of bread representing the twelve tribes of Israel before God. Each week new loaves were set out, and the bread from the past week was eaten; but, it could only, Jesus acknowledges in repeating the story, be “legally” eaten by the priests. If the Pharisees understood what this meant, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” Jesus says quoting Hosea 6:6, “they would not have condemned the guiltless.” David and his band ate the sacred loaves of bread which was not permissible and no blame was attached, showing, that human need takes precedence over rituals, and customs, and even clear Biblical imperatives.
Too Full of What’s Right to Know What’s Good
Notice, however, that identifying a first principle and determining its correct application, as Jesus’s conflict with the Pharisees shows, is not always an easy matter. It requires a great deal of humility and wisdom and lived experience to become a person who is moral without moralizing, and who is not so full of what is “right” that he or she no longer knows what is good. What we are talking about is that quality of character known in the Greek New Testament as “epieikeia”–– one of those words that is especially difficult to translate. The ARSV translates it most often as “gentleness.” Aristotle said epieikeia is that which corrects the law when the law is deficient because it is too general. “It is,” he said, “that which is just and sometimes better than justice.” In the First Epistle to Timothy it is listed as one of the criteria for measuring pastoral care and leadership. The person who is gentle is one who does not rigidly insist on following a set of rules, or exercising his or her rights if doing so harms or diminishes another person. The first question the genuinely Christian man or woman faces in making any decision is not one of philosophical logic or legal technicality, but what kind of person he or she is and wants to be. What research has shown conclusively, is that very, very few of us, regardless of our profession of faith, familiarity with the Biblical text, or degree of theological education have come anywhere near the upper levels of moral reasoning.
That Which Proves Too Much
During the presidential campaign The Rev. Robert E. Morey, priest at Saint Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina, denied Joe Biden communion saying that Biden’s stance on abortion placed himself outside the moral teaching of the church––a position taken by numerous other conservative bishops, priests, and lay people. In explaining why he, as an evangelical, votes Republican, and why he has been and continues to be supportive of Donald Trump, Robert Jeffress says, “For evangelical Christians who submit to the authority of the Bible, there are few political issues that clearly rise to the level of first principles. Abortion is that kind of issue. It involves the death of an innocent human life.” Who would ever have thought Protestant fundamentalists and Catholic conservatives could sound so much alike?
The statement that abortion involves the taking of innocent human life, begs the question; that is, it states as a fact the very thing that must be proved. So, those who believe in the doctrine of original sin as sharing in the actual guilt of Adam and Eve, which I do not, will need to find a new way to define innocence. And fundamentalists will need to prove that human life, innocent or otherwise, begins at conception. However, the clearest Biblical indication we have as to when a fetus is recognized as a human being is that it is the moment it exits the mother’s vaginal canal into the world. I certainly do not think that an undifferentiated mass of tissue, in spite of already being named and loved, is a human soul; or, that preventing pregnancy is tantamount to killing; or that a girl or woman who has been impregnated by her own father, or by rape, has committed a heinous crime in getting an abortion; nor, will I tell a woman who learns late term that the child she is carrying, with unutterable joy, will be born with massive parts of its brain missing, that she is a monster if in her agony she aborts. Indeed, I believe that would make me the monster. No, the God I believe in, the invisible God of Holy Scripture, of whom Jesus Christ is the visible expression, would judge me sorely if I did not weep for such sorrow and hurt––did not mourn the human condition. In moving on I will simply say, that for the Christian the issue of abortion should be reflected on in light of first principles, but it is not itself a first principle.
Actually it is difficult to put this conservative proposition as stated by Jeffress into proper or logical syllogistic form so as to make complete sense of it. It is an obvious and rather convoluted attempt to identify respect for life as a first principle applying narrowly to abortion while, for example, avoiding its implications for war and the death penalty. Jesus, of course, did not narrow but radically deepened and broadened nonviolence, or “reverence for life” (Schweitzer), as a first principle for his followers. As the philosophers say: “quod nimis probat, nihil probat,” “What proves too much proves nothing.”
Marriage and Religious Freedom
I am not sure how or what first principle marriage and religious freedom are being derived from by fundamentalists such as Jeffress, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr., or Steve Bannon. I am guessing, although I could be entirely wrong, that what this means is that those subjects are addressed in the Scriptures; and, their interpretation of what the Bible says must be followed without question or compromise. In that case it is actually their interpretation that becomes a “first principle,” and not necessarily what Scripture actually teaches. It is my further suspicion that “marriage” is a code word for gay marriage as opposed to that of a heterosexual couple.
What was it Jesus said to the powerful conservatives of his day? “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines (first principles) the commandments of men.” What I am confident of as one who has read the Bible through from beginning to end more than once and is unequivocally committed to the Jesus Way, is that religious freedom is not a political permission granted by the government, but a spirituality to be lived. To serve God and his loving purpose for others is itself freedom.
Perfect Freedom
However, most Americans are afflicted by the false notion that freedom means being able to do what they want. If in the midst of a deadly pandemic the government urges the wearing of masks, social distancing, or the temporary suspension of large gatherings, people become enraged that their “freedom” is being impinged upon––and are even willing to kill (take an innocent human life) to prove they are indeed free. Mega churches and whole Roman Catholic parishes defy limiting large super spreader “worship” events because it violates their “religious rights.” What one really suspects, of course, is that wealthy and influential pastors, being shrewd business men and women or even actual thieves, (Jerry Falwell, Jr., $30,000,000; Franklin Graham, $10,000,000, Paula White $5,000,000; Robert Jeffress $17,000,000; Rick Warren $25,000 000) and Archbishop Viganò ($30,000,000) are really more worried about losing the loyal “customers” who have made them rich with their contributions, or with losing power more than they are about religious freedom. Conservative Roman Catholics whine that their rights are taken away when they are required to offer health plans that pay for birth control. Yet, these Catholic institutions receive a mindboggling influx of government cash in grants, student aid, Medicare payments, and research funds. They employ professors, medical doctors, technicians, computer programmers, nurses, aids, custodians, cooks, clerical personnel, and a multitude of other workers who include, beside Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Humanists, Hindus, Buddhist, Agonistics, Atheists and maybe a Klingon or two.
So here is what I suggest to all religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities if they want to be completely free to follow their convictions. Stop taking the tax dollars of citizens who either disagree with your beliefs or could care less (that is, unfortunately, more than half the U.S. population). And, hire employees and admit students and patients only of your faith. For only then will you have the moral right to follow your convictions without interference. The same thing goes for local churches and pastors. Stop taking tax exemptions for contributions, property tax exemptions on your worship space (for which you receive fire and police protection as well as other major services for that site), and housing allowances for clergy. It’s really very simple, if we take someone’s money we are under certain obligations to that person. The only way to be completely free of that person’s wishes is not to take their money in the first place (Proverbs 23:3).
The more people, whether Christians, fundamentalists, Shinto, or atheists, or whatever, are able to regulate themselves for the sake of the common good, the greater freedom everyone will enjoy. Ultimately, the inability to self-regulate, and falling prey to compulsive and reactive feelings of personal grievance and defiance will only lead to greater and greater loss of both individual and collective freedom as supposed Christians insist on acting as if only their beliefs matter. Historically, those who cannot control themselves for the sake of the common good end up either the victims of authoritarian governments or of an imploding society. “The law code does not exist for the responsible, but for the irresponsible” (1 Timothy 1:9).
Whether we like it or not we now live in a pluralistic society. In every major American city, and in most major cities of the world, you will find people of different faiths, philosophies, cultures, nationalities, ethnicities, races, and social backgrounds working, eating, worshipping, playing, romancing, voting, going to school and doing all sorts of others things together. Nonwhites and Hispanics constituted a majority of people under age sixteen in 2019. Forty percent of the total U.S. population is now either nonwhite or Hispanic. By 2050, in about thirty years, less than half of the total U.S. population will be white non-Hispanic. It becomes more and more important every day for the well-being of everyone, for the nation and the whole world, to find a harmonious balance of all these different life-styles, interests, religions, races, and cultures. Christians, real Christians, with a faith informed by gratitude, appreciation, mutual respect, and its understanding of humanity as a brotherhood and a sisterhood will lead in this regard; but, Christians, real Christians, will not attempt to bully anyone into thinking or behaving as they do. Instead, they will be a luminous and inviting witness of this simple Way of Jesus of Nazareth. We cannot change other people against their will, neither should we even desire to do so. All we can do is live this life as deeply as we possibly can in hope that others may choose to join us on this journey. However, fundamentalist of every kind will most likely continue to be obscurantists as they fight a rear guard action against the inevitable end of the dominance of white Christendom––not of Christianity, but of Christendom. Freedom is most certainly an important principle when understood and lived in its radical and paradoxical significance––”perfect freedom is to serve God and others.”
Morals, Life, and Everything in Two Precepts
Religion scholars, philosophers, pastors, priests, saints, sinners mystics, ordinary Bible readers, and even psychologists have debated and continue to debate, and to reflect on questions of morality and ethics: “How should I live?” “What is virtuous?” “How can I tell the difference between good and evil?” “What light is there, if any, to guide me in my life with others?” Christians for whom faith is an embraced and owned inner reality, and not a mere mechanical recitation, all moral theology and guidance is summed up in two precepts that are breathtaking in their utter simplicity and profundity.
“First”‘ Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all the passions that expand your heart, love God with every bit of your intelligence, and love the Lord your God with all the prayerful trust, commitment and will power in you.” This, he emphasized, is the first and greatest of all precepts, principles and commands .”But there is a second to set alongside it––in reality, as you will discover, the two are one. It is: Love others as well as you love yourself, seeking what is in the legitimate best interest of those around you as much as you seek what is best for you. These two precepts sum up everything of God’s will, and everything in the Law and the Prophets is derived from them.”(Matt 22:37-40, my English paraphrase of the original Greek)
The Apostle Paul, who knew pretty well what it is to not only follow Christ, but to be in Christ and for Christ to be in him said: “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” And the great poet William Blake expressed the core of Christian moral principle well in these two famous lines:
And we are put on earth a little space,
That we may learn to bear the beams of love.
Love, according to the whole Christian tradition, is what we were created for. To receive love, to give love, to know love, to be love is the meaning and purpose of our existence.
Love for God and others is not a first principle. It is the first principle, and it leaves out nothing that is true, or, good, or beautiful. We must, therefore, be very careful not to whimsically set aside important ethical and moral matters as mere opinion because that is the way we would like for it to be. Immigration decisions based on a purely pragmatic and objective analysis of population growth and economic issues might very well be nothing more than a matter of making determinations based on informed opinion. But immigration questions decided on the basis of race or ethnicity involve serious moral questions. And the cruel, inhuman, and torturous treatment of immigrants at the southern border by Trump and Republicans was a heinous offense, not just against humanity, but against God. Indeed, I can easily make a stronger case against the mistreatment of “the stranger” (immigrants) from Scripture alone than fundamentalists can make against abortion. And, to claim that tax rates are matters of moral indifference is absolutely asinine. No one who has ever read the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the words of Jesus, the Apostles or the Patristics can have any doubt that taxes and budgets (what individuals and governments and churches do with their money) are moral issues, and are of great concern to God––of far greater concern to God than the use of contraception or teenage sex. Can anyone who has attended Sunday school as a child, or occasionally read the Bible; or, can anyone who has ever attended seminary not know of God’s intense concern for the poor and vulnerable? For the Christian who takes seriously the two great precepts of Jesus, and that is the only kind of real Christian there is, everything they think, everything they say, everything they do, and, most significant of all, everything they are is evaluated in the Light of Love. How to live love in any given situation cannot be reduced to a list of rules. It requires a good deal of living, knowledge, and wisdom.
About Patterns
One of the most important lessons I learned many year ago first as a psychotherapist, especially in treating addiction, and then in my own prayer practice, is to focus on patterns and systems. In the treatment of alcoholism it is the difference between a “slip” and a relapse in which active drinking is resumed. M. Scott Peck, in his book People of the Lie: Toward a Psychology of Evil, described a whole pattern of life by which the pathology of evil could be diagnosed. That pattern is found in very few people, most of us are just rather garden-variety sinners, but the truly evil, who are usually hiding in political office or church leadership, can be recognized by the tessellation of their lives. Trump was not diagnosed by the psychiatric profession as clinically narcissistic and psychopathic because of something he said or did here and there, but because his words and behavior fit a specific pattern. Progressive Catholics, moderate evangelicals and mainline clergy did not vote and speak out against him merely because they disagreed with one or two “pragmatic” decisions or policies, but because they found the whole of his policies and life to be corrupt and evil. I am a Christian pacifist––a first principle, great command, issue for me. I believe that the teachings of Christ are explicitly nonviolent. And I believe that President Barack Obama’s drone strikes against innocent civilians constituted crimes against humanity; but, I voted for him twice based on his overall pattern of competency, intelligence, common sense, mental health, integrity, basic decency, temperament, family life, moral standards derived from his Christian faith, compassionate policies in the areas of health care, the environment, immigration, and regulation of vulture capitalism; and, because, unlike Jeffress, Graham, Falwell and their ilkI believe character matters.
Moral Theology Is a Person
Ultimately, Christian moral theology is not a body of teaching nor is it a doctrine–– it is a person. The first time I ever visited London friends took me to the National Gallery. They told me there was not enough time to explore the whole gallery even if we had all day––which we didn’t. So, I was to pick just one room––one artist. Without really thinking about it I said, “Rembrandt.” With me trailing behind, trying to quickly take in everything I saw on the way, we walked rapidly to the Rembrandt exhibit. As I approached the door to the Rembrandt exhibit I saw, just to my left, a large painting by one of the great seventeenth century Dutch masters, Gerrit van Honthorst’s Christ Before the High Priest. I was transfixed. I eventually, because of the urging of my friends, made it to the Rembrandt exhibit, but only for a short time before returning to Honthorst’s painting.
It’s main stylistic feature is an amazing contrast between light and darkness. The candle on the table is placed closer to the High Priest than it is to Christ; yet, the light actually seems to emanate from Christ rather than the candle, and the further you move from Christ the darker it becomes. The two figures furthest away from Christ are in the deepest darkness, and the two well-dressed, shadowy men behind the high priest are arrogant and defensive in their expressions and posture. The High Priest is proud, moralizing, accusatory. Smugly certain he knows it all, he holds up a single finger, lecturing Christ. Two books, one representing the law given by Moses and the other the prophetic writings lay on the table before the High Priest––Caiaphas. One is closed and the other unreadable in the dim light, suggesting his spiritual blindness and intellectual ignorance as he pompously explains to Jesus what’s right. In contrast everything about Jesus communicates humility, strength, confidence, patience and sanity. Jesus’s eyes, hands, and peaceful silence, his whole bearing, express knowledge, wisdom, and genuine goodness. The painting itself is large (9X6), reminding its viewers of the immensity of Christ. My puzzled friends bought me a print. It hangs in our condo where I cannot help but gaze directly at it several times a day; and, as I do, remember the unfathomable generosity, beauty, and divine wisdom that I find so irresistibly alluring. Evelyn Underhill was right, “Those who have seen the perfect want to be perfect.” Whatever it is that Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and fundamentalists leaders of every stripe have, whatever it is that actually guides them, I do not want. The anger, the cruelty, the violence, the narcissism, the arrogance, the sheer hypocrisy, the pontificating, the mendacity, and the twisting of the teachings of Jesus repulse me. It is, I believe, an egregious misreporting of Jesus to win votes for Republicans and so conserve the wealth and power of themselves and their friends.