Archived Current Debates

30 JUN

Do we need to observe a Sabbath?

Mark Pargeter
40
Comments | Latest by jonhunt , 9 Jul

In the 1960s the Department of Architectural Studies at Sheffield University undertook a survey which showed that buildings which were used heavily every day of the week suffered from stress and were unlikely to last. Those that had just one 24-hour period of "refreshment" each week had time to recover and lasted longer.

If a building requires regular rest, how much more those who work in it?

Today, the 24/7 mantra dictates otherwise. Although holiday periods and weekly hours are regulated, employers have more power over the lifestyles of their employees than at any time in decades. Annualised hours contracts force employees to work when there is demand for their labour, regardless of the consequences to home life or commitments. In a recent survey by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, (USDAW) 62% of employees said they were under pressure to work on Sunday. That pressure is particularly severe on those just beginning their careers. Every church congregation will contain at least one young person who is working on Sunday and unable to attend services, however involved and committed they may have been before they started work.

This pressure might be a necessary evil if there were a serious pressure for a 24/7 culture. But research suggests there is not. A GfK NOP Telebus poll taken in July 2007 reported that two thirds of those polled felt that Sunday had lost its special feel, and almost three quarters said they would not be bothered if the large stores were not open on Sunday. Two fifths of respondents said that it was very important for family stability and community life to have a shared common day off each week. Only 3% said that was unimportant. Almost a third of respondents said that they never used large stores on Sunday.
 
Nor is there much evidence that abolishing a shared day of rest improves economic productivity. There was a time in the 1970s when the country went on a three day week. Lack of fuel reduced the capacity to provide sufficient electricity for industry and commerce. Instead of production levels plummeting, however, output remained virtually constant.
 
Indeed, there is evidence that enforced rest can improve productivity. My father-in-law was a senior banker in the City of London. When he was responsible for bank inspections he was always suspicious of managers who never took their holiday. The Financial Services Authority think the same way and have called for all those who have responsibility for money to take two consecutive weeks off each year. It makes good sense. Those who are engaged in fraud or practices which place unscheduled risks on their employers find it much more difficult to do this when they are away from their desks and their work is being undertaken by someone else.
 
Taking holidays is not, of course, a modern concept. Not only were the people of Israel mandated to rest every week, but they were told to take a camping holiday of eight days every year as an extended August Bank Holiday after the harvest had been gathered in. Until recently, that practice was deeply ingrained in the British national conscience.
 
After the Reformation the Quakers rediscovered the economic advantages that could be obtained from an ordered life of limiting work by adhering to a cycle which included a Sunday completely free of work. From that was developed a range of industrial and commercial enterprises in which the workers had time to take their leisure. Cadbury’s model village of Bourneville in Birmingham was designed around a normal pattern of family life in which the workers were encouraged to engage in sports, cultivate their gardens, maintain their health and participate in religious activities.
 
More recently, the Gower Handbook of Management notes, ‘Relaxation can be achieved in two ways. The first is to carry out any activity which distracts the mind from work. A happy home life, religious activity, gardening, sport, hobbies; all of these are good forms of relaxation. ..’
 
Religions make space for many different patterns of life. But the importance many, not least Christianity, attach to a shared period of rest is to be ignored at our peril. Whether that rest should be every day, every week, every month or every season will be open to debate. But the point is that simply leaving the business of rest to the marketplace of personal choice results in a relentless 24/7 culture, with all the personal, social and environmental stress that we are becoming familiar with. 24/7 is unsustainable. Everyone would benefit from taking a Sabbath.
 
 
Mark Pargeter is a lay minister at St Andrew's Caversham. He helped form the World Development Movement in the 1960s, was a member of the Lichfield Diocese Higher Education Advisory Group in the 1980s, and was China researcher for Keston Institute more recently. He is now a member of the advisory group for the Centre for the Study of Christianity in China.

40
Jump to Latest Comment

The debate


Paul Rodden 30 Jun

Yes, if you're a Christian. If not, do what you like.


As always, I can't talk for other the manifold of other Christians. But from my tradition, taking a day off a week because benefits me would be heresy. It is the command of God, plain and simple, and is not linked to any earthly reward or benefit.

Joanna 30 Jun

Isn't it the command of God BECAUSE it is for our benefit?

Greywizard 30 Jun

What a horrible way to live a life! Obeying God's commands because they are of benefit is heresy! Good Dog!


I agree that a shared day off is a good idea. It's very difficult for families to get time together otherwise. But if the Sabbath is commanded, it is Saturday, not Sunday. The church changed the rules so that Christians did not meet on the same day as the Jews, who did obey the commandment. Of course, they could hitch it up to the story of the resurrection too, so they had a good excuse.


Of course, divine commandments are like oracles. They are only addressed to those who hear them. Otherwise, they are simply words spoken (or written) by some other human being. If we do want a shared day, perhaps we should pick one that itsn't already chosen by some religion, Wednesday (Woden's Day) perhaps.

jonhunt 1 Jul

Paul


How do you interpret: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"?

Paul Rodden 1 Jul

johnhunt. If the Sabbath was made for man, why can't a person do absolutely anything they want then, if it's just for our benefit?


Notice who uses those words: Christ. Who is the Lord of the Sabbath: Christ. Who were the disciples spending time with: Christ. That is, they were spending their time with God, and what's the purpose of the Sabbath? To spend time with God. The Sabbath was made for man to... It is not intransitive. It was not made for man, full stop, it had a definite purpose, and the disciples were fulfilling it. They were worshipping God by spending their time with Him on that appointed day and keeping it holy - which is the purpose of the Sabbath, isn't it?


The issue of the Sabbath is that it's an allotted day, not just 'having a day off'. If it was, then any day would do. And the benefits from having a day off a week (if not two!) is clearly beneficial, but the Sabbath doesn't mean that, does it?

polly 1 Jul

I'm surprised that your understanding of the common good and human wellbeing appears so thin Paul. If the Sabbath was made for man, a person "shouldn't do absolutely anything they want", because that's not for their benefit. It was Irenaeus who said that "The glory of God is seen in a human being fully alive". In other words, love of God and neighbour is part of what makes us human. In addition to the cultic significance of the commandment, there is an associated emphasis on living well. The jubilee laws were similarly directed. The rest and worship elements of Sabbath are integrated and should not be separated.

Nicholas 1 Jul

No reference, of course, to the alleged "survey" by Sheffield. Cathedrals, for example, don't get 24 hours of "refreshment" every week, and lots of them haven't fallen down yet. A building left unused for 168 hours a week, on the other hand, decays. And why should there be any parallel between buildings and humans? I mention these points just to highlight the complete absence of critical thinking in Mark Pargeter's article.

Employment law says everyone is entitled to at last one day off each week, and to several weeks holiday a year.

The only issue is whether everyone should have the same day off each week. It has never happened. Where it almost happens, on mad Calvinist Scottish islands, or behind a wire in Golders Green, it is misery. Even there, someone works cooking the Sunday lunch, but that doesn't count because they are women, or something. And even there, people are no longer stoned to death for collecting firewood on Sunday.

I bet Mark Pargeter expects his lights to work, and his sewage to flow away, 24/7.

His article simply confirms the utter moral bankruptcy of the so-called 'ten' (the count depends on how you divide the text, of course) so-called 'commandments'.

Are there reasons why humans will be happier if they have a rest from time to time? Yes. Therefore, we can know those reasons, and have no need of a supernatural commander. (Still less an absurd egocentric one which tells us to have a rest 'because' it had a rest after creating the universe.)

Or must we, like Paul Rodden, have a rest because an alleged supernatural source is alleged to have commanded us to? If so, this supernatural source is a wicked tyrant, and deserves our contempt and defiance. And yes, Plato did point all that out long ago, in a dialogue I occasionally mention in this forum...

Joanna 1 Jul

Greywiz, heresy to believe I was created by a God who loves me and designed me to gain my greatest fulfillment in loving, serving and obeying Him? A horrible way to live believing that He commands things because He knows they are the way the world will function best?



Surely anything else would be heresy and misery, wouldn't it? Believing He is a tyrant who commands things on a whim just to make us miserable while giving himself a good laugh?



I'll stick with my way, thanks.

Greywizard 1 Jul

Joanna, by all means, stick with your way, but please, please, don't imagine that you can know the mind of God (for any god). To put it in logical terminology, what you are saying, when you say that God commands something, is that, for any X, where X is a god, X commands Y (where Y is something you believe that God commands). How can anyone be so sure that they know? Besides, talking about greatest fulfilment in terms of serving and obeying someone seems a bit of a stretch to me, and probably inconsistent with love. (Oh yes, I know, I know, service is perfect freedom, and all that!)


While we're at it, though, let's look at the word 'heresy' a moment. The word 'heresy' comes from the Greek word meaning (basically) 'to think differently,' in other words, to dissent. So heretics are those who think differently than the orthodox. But of course those called heretics by the orthodox called the orthodox heretics in their turn. So heresy itself doesn't identify anything absolutely, but just from a point of view. Roman Catholics think that all other Christians are heterodox in some respect (and therefore heretical), and they're not quite sure, as Paul has pointed out from time to time, about some of their own number.


Great analysis Nicholas, and some excellent points about the difference between buildings and people! And I am old enough to remember Presbyterian Sundays: no games, no bicylces, only church and improving books -- sacred, boring, oppressive days which seemed to stretch endlessly into a future fossilised by sedimented layers of holiness.


At the same time, there is no reason why we shouldn't make some effort to ensure that families have a chance to be together on a regular basis, even if that means some way of coordinating work schedules for partners, both of whom are employed outside the home.

Zak Bishrey 1 Jul

I don’t believe my eyes. First Paul comes with his usual heap of ill thought out garbage, and can’t wait to use his busted trump card “God” whenever he is short of a sensible argument, regardless of how stupid he looks doing it.



Then there is a discussion about whose “ShBT” it is (can’t do Hebrew script here and no vowels anyway). Surely you all know that the Jewish days of the week are numbered from the first day, what is also called Sunday to what is also called Friday, with the seventh day called, quite properly, “Rest”.



The truth of the matter (according to Genesis) is that God was knackered after creating the universe in six days so he took a day off to Rest. It had nothing to do with Christ, and the day of rest was not for Jesus but for his dad, some 4004 years before he was born (according to Archbishop Ussher). And if you want to be precise about it, alright then, God rested on the evening of Friday 28th October 4004 BC, exactly six days after he started the project on the evening of Sunday the 22nd of October. Honest.



It was that upstart Constantine (of Istanbul fame) who messed about with the days of the week. First, by making people work on the proper day of Rest and renaming it after the god Saturn. Secondly, by making the following day the new Roman day of rest and renaming it after the Sun. Well what else do you expect from a Sun worshipper (look at his coin). And why shouldn’t Constantine mess about with the days of the week when his own mother Helena could discover the exact spot where Jesus was born (by Caesarean section, else how would his mother remain a virgin), more than 350 years after the stable was bulldozed flat to the ground.



What was the question? Oh yes: Do we need to observe a Sabbath? Yes Mark, if you mean a common and convenient day of rest for all (or most) of us. No, if you drag God into it and pretend that your god gives a damn or a single solitary hoot about who tires and who rests, and who is born a cripple or blind or deaf, and who gets blown to smithereens in a holy Crusade, or a Jihad, or a Milhemet Mitzbah.


polly 1 Jul

Come on Zak! I think you can do better than that. I think most of us know how Jewish days are numbered. I don't ask you to believe in the Christian tradition, but it would be helpful if you understood it a bit better (especially the relation between old and new Testaments) and parodied it a little less, however tempting that is. Clearly there are some important questions to ask about what OT laws remain relevant in the NT. I don't think that there is an absolute requirement to keep a particular day aside, but I do think it's in our society's interests that we do so, and I do think theology is relevant in this regard. The liberalisation of the UK's Sunday Trading laws have had a hugely disproportionate effect on the poorest in society who are usually the people forced to work in supermarkets to satisfy our consumer demands. Scripture has a lot to say about this, given that God’s intention is for human beings to be whole and fulfilled.

Greywizard 1 Jul

Oh dear, Zak's inimitable scorn and polly's unquestioning acceptance of revelation. First of all, why are there 'some important questions to ask about what OT laws remain relevant in the NT?' Relevant to whom? Why? No one can establish that these laws are really divine laws, any more than the Qur'an is a divine book, with its divine laws, or the Mahabharata's strictures apply to contemporary people.


Of course, contrary to Zak, memorialising the first day of the week amongst Christians came before Constantine, though he had reason enough to confirm it. Still the point is that, if there is a commandment at all in the OT-NT corpus, it concerns the seventh day and not the first.


Agreed, some of the less well off suffer more than most from the change to business seven days a week, and we need to look at this from the standpoint of justice. It has nothing, however, to do with divine commands. It has to do with the fact that a common day of rest, at least for members of the same family, is a good thing, and helps to preserve and build relationships that may be important for society as a whole. In this connnexion, Zak's point stands: we do need a time of rest. It's good for us. And it would be best if members of families could share their rest time together. That seems easy enough. Why drag a god into it?

Zak Bishrey 1 Jul

Polly: If I tried to “do better than that”, the Christians would throw me to the lions! And Greywizard, if I sound a little scornful it is because I was accused by my grandma of being a Freemason for asking her what Kiri eleison meant (I was seven at the time), and because for 3000 years we have had the OT shoved down our throats as being the very word of God, then when verses and chapters in the OT are proven mathematically to be a load of incredible bullshit, we are told that it was not meant to be taken seriously, or that God was playing Star-Trek games with us.



I agree wholeheartedly that it is in every society’s best interest to set aside a day or two in the week for rest, recreation, and family cohesion. No one knows that better than those who have to leave for work before their infants wake up in the morning and return when it is nearly their bed-time. In these circumstances the weekends are precious, not least because the children would get to know their parents. But what has any of this to do with any god?



If you really want to know Polly, my tradition was approved by Jesus in the 1st century AD, by Hillel in the 1st century BC, and by Kung-Zi in the 5th century BC, which is that “I do not do unto others that which I do not wish done unto me”. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence that this doctrine is widely practiced by the followers of Jesus, Hillel, or Confucius. Just how big a failure does any god has to be before he is discarded as a non-working prototype?



However, I agree with you that the 7-day working week is detrimental to family life, since it is difficult, if not impossible, to synchronise in most cases the free time of both the parents and the children. So now we can all relax together in this warm and amicable concord, as long as no one tries to shove down my throat the notion that I am getting my free weekends as a courtesy from a god, or that I owe him anything in return.



I will see you again in a few days when I have returned from my son’s estate in France.


Nicholas 1 Jul

If Y_hw_h exists, and if its "intention is for human beings to be whole and fulfilled", why did it "command" that male infants should have their foreskins chopped off, thus lessening their capacity for sexual fulfilment? As to the "relation" between OT and NT, it is obvious. The compilers of the gospels invented various events that would 'fulfil' OT 'prophecies'. They hadn't a clue whether Jesus was out to undermine barmy OT precepts, or reinforce them, but had him ranting on at tedious length about torture for unbelievers after their death. This last is the most striking new thing in the NT.

Where is the evidence about the number of people now working on Sunday who would prefer to be with other members of their families? And what would they be doing, that would not entail yet other people working? How is it known that they wouldn't rather be going for solitary walks, or down the pub with their mates, or buying stuff themselves? The dismal Scottish Sunday was all too real. But the cornflakes-packet family flying kites on the common (or whatever) was ever a rarity.

Paul Rodden 1 Jul

OK. I need to clarify.


My initial post was about motives and intentions. It was about the teleological grammar of action (i.e., ends, objects, acts, intentions, etc.) within an Aristotelian/Thomistic framework. An analogy from the Memoirs of St Louis de Joinville:


"As they were on their way from their lodgings to the sultan's palace Brother Yves caught sight of an old woman going across the street, with a bowl full of flaming coals in her right hand and a flask filled with water in her left. 'What are you going to do with these?' he asked her. The old woman answered that with the fire she intended to burn up paradise and destroy it utterly, and with the water she would quench the fires of hell, so that it too would be gone for ever. "why do you want to do that?' asked Brother Yves. 'Because,' said she, 'I don't want anyone ever to do good in the hope of gaining paradise, or from fear of hell; but solely for the love of God, Who deserves so much from us, and Who will do us all the good He can.'" This is broadly the Catholic position.


Firstly, the CCC states, "[2007] With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. [2008] The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit." Therefore, we shouldn't expect 'benefit' in a syllogistic fashion from keeping the commandments, which I think has more in common with Pharisaism or the 'prosperity gospel', rather than orthodox Christianity.


And when the Catechism gets to the ten commandments, there is no mention of the commandments being primarily for our material benefit. And, as far as I can see, there are no scriptural passages which uphold the view of the commandments being for our benefit either, rather than God commanding them. I will revise my view if anyone produces a conclusive text from scripture to the contrary. In relation to the Sabbath, I think Exodus 31:12-17 is pretty clear.


That said, the commandments are for our happiness, but happiness (beatitudo) doesn't mean joy, but human flourishing, and is related to the natural law in general. Therefore, it is still only as a side effect, or offshoot of, following the law, not as the end in itself.


To give a crude example, sometimes my son behaves well because he knows if he does, he thinks he'll be given a treat. Other times, he behaves well because he wants to please us, and thereby show his love. I think it is clear, which action is the morally superior one: when he acts from the motive of not receiving anything in return.


My reaction to the article was that it seemed to be prostituting one of God's commandments by underselling it as beneficial per se, when it has a very specific theological dimension, and by doing this, I find it somewhat blasphemous. But then again, how much of modern 'evangelistic outreach' is a commodification of the Gospel and scalp-hunting, rather than a genuine love for those victims of its machinations? 'Hookers for Jesus' wouldn't exist otherwise, for example. Anything to get the punters in.


lastly, health, and as a result, possible longevity, is of interest to the secular. However, the ten commandments also cover the evils of abortion, euthanasia, adultery, divorce, fornication, unfair wages, etc.. These would receive a very different reception if any of these were used as examples, but at the same time, shows how this article distorts the commandments in general through the abuse of a specific, in my opinion.

Greywizard 1 Jul

I'm sorry, Zak. I didn't mean to offend. I was thinking of your fluency in scorn as a positive thing overall. It's done with such aplomb! Bravo! Scorn is not necessarily a bad thing. Some things need to be scorned.


Scorn is appropriate when people, like you Paul, extend the ten commandments, without any justification whatever, to cover all the Roman Catholic sin agenda: abortion, euthanasia, adultery, divorce, fornication, unfair wages.... Only the last is definitely wrong, since it contains injustice as part of its definition. All the others are sometimes justified, despite the furious condemnations of the Vatican. And the catechism can be as clear as you like. Doesn't make an iota of difference, unless there are good reasons, moral reasons, not just supposed commandments, to think otherwise.


Neither reward nor love nor commandment should drive moral action, but the desire to act rightly, and for the good, that is, for the benefit of other men and women and sensitive beings. Indeed, commandment is the enemy of morality; it brings into play entirely extraneous considerations. Pleasing God or doing what God says is not a good reason for doing anything. Doing it because it is right, and because it is best for those concerned is. And someone's idea of what God wants or commands does not make it the best for those concerned.


Is divorce an evil? Not necessarily. When a relationship has reached its end, and is doing only harm to those involved, then it may be time to end it. Is abortion necessarily evil? No. There are lots of circumstances in which it is better than bringing a child into the world; and it is simply wrong for others to rule over women's right to be in control of their lives.


Just making rules is not enough. What is good and right is what is for the benefit and flourishing of those concerned. I'm not going to argue the case for abortion, but there are times, I believe, when it is better than continuing with the pregnancy. Besides, it is not for us to choose. Same goes for days of rest. We do not have them because they are commanded. We have them, if we do, because it contributes to the welfare of human beings.


Of course, those who believe that they must do as they are commanded, may do so, so long as it does not harm others, but when it does -- and it often does, because those who believe in commandments try to impose their commandments on others without justification -- then it is time to be quits with them. And listing evils in the way that Paul has just done, in such a cavalier, 'God knows best', sort of way, is an example of the worst sort of religious interference in the lives of others. Enough with God's commandments. We need reasons, not just orders!

Nicholas 2 Jul

Useful of Paul Rodden to remind us how plainly the Sabbath rule is an invention of power-mad priests of one of the nastiest of the imagined gods, Y_hw_h. "Everyone who profanes [the Sabbath] shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." And why? Because "in six days Y_hw_h made heaven and earth." The proposition is a vainglorious lie. And even if were true, the alleged consequence would not follow.

Moreover, why should anyone pay any attention to the 'no profaning' rule, but not, currently, to the death penalty? And why listen to this garbage about the Sabbath, but not, say, to the equally clear and appalling rules about nailing slaves' ears to the door? (Exodus 21:6)

Greywizard 2 Jul

Come, come, Nicholas, Quezalcoatl and Allah are arguably nastier! :-)


The point is, of course, that all these beings are creatures of our imagination, and the rules laid down by them, even if there is no logical connexion between the acts of the gods described and the rules prescribed, are just as imaginary. It is misleading to talk about religious rules of behaviour as moral rules. The moral point of view prescinds from all concerns aside from the effect of actions on the flourishing of sensitive beings affected by them. Anything else is just background noise. It has taken us several thousand years to get an insight into what tuning out the religious hiss in moral deliberation is like.


People like Paul keep trying to say that the hiss is important. What they have to do is tell us why. Why should we pay attention when someone says a god or gods have commanded something? Even if they could prove that there is a command from a god (which, of course, they can't), they still need to explain why this is important. How does knowing something like that affect our moral judgement?


This applies particularly to the observance of holy days, like Friday, Saturday or Sunday, each one separately commanded by three different gods. Perhaps if we can find more divine commands, all our days should be free, and everyone should have prizes!

Paul Rodden 2 Jul

Hi Grey and Nicholas. Firstly, Nic., thanks for keeping you-know-what as just a brief comment on the end of one of your previous posts. I was bracing myself for more :)


My first post said: "Yes, if you're a Christian. If not, do what you like." Surely, these last two posts are ignoring my opening gambit? You can do what you like, and believe what you like. You also might get into heaven, I might not, too. All that protestant predestination and 'blessed assurance' stuff gives me the willies as it's a recipe for fanatical utopianism or a genocidal theocrazy (sic).


Anyway, slowly getting back to the point. You can do what you like; ignore and ridicule the commandments if you like; burn bibles on a bonfire if you like; fry Christians on stakes if you like... It's not for me to get all defensive and prissy about it. That's why I'm so puzzled why you, Zak, and Grey, hang about in here. To me, it's the most fascinating aspect of this forum.


If I didn't believe in God, the commandments, and nearly everything else in here, I wouldn't even bother with it, let alone waste time posting here. Paradoxically, you, Zak, and Greywiz, are incredibly affirming, and are actually encouraging and strengthening religion and Theos' case by posting here. You give us the opportunity to see how you think, how to tackle secularist attacks more effectively, and make us see we've got something worthwhile saying. You certainly help me think, especially when people like Zak talk about reason and facts and such like, yet post the way he does in response to what I'm saying, and prove the age-old principle: do as I say, not as I do, of which we are accused! It then makes me wonder if we are really that much different, despite protestations to the contrary, after all.


The commandments can't be kept. We can't stop sinning against God, like you can't stop 'sinning' against reason. That's why I've always said the secular/sacred divide is a totally false premise. It doesn't stand 'the test of reason' or the 5 exterior senses itself. But for me, that fact also upholds the Catholic principle of the Natural Law. The Decalogue is merely the absolute minimum set of proscriptions for those who have strayed so far from God (like the Israelites were in danger of doing again, as they had previously, before the flood).


For the bible-alone Christian and Pharisee, scripture alone provides the necessary and sufficient principles for a Godly life. For the Catholic, it is far broader as the principles of Natural Law mean one doesn't have to check everything against the rulebook because the Law is written on everyone's heart, even yours, Nic., although you might deny it flatly. But there are plenty of things we deny about ourselves, but which are true, aren't there? You can do what you like - but I can't, and have no desire to - stop you. I would be presuming I was somehow superior if I did - which is why I'm not going to patronise you like Evangelicals do us poor, poor, lost Catholics (to our faces - complete with sickly smile - yet 'whore of Babylon' and 'spawn of Satan', behind our backs).


"Love, and do what you will. If you keep silence, keep silence in love; if you speak, speak in love; if you correct, correct in love; if you forbear, forbear in love. Let love's root be within you, for from that root nothing but good can spring." St Augustine, Ep. Joannis, 7.8 (Remember, this isn't an attempt at an authoritative proof-text - I don't do proof-texts - apart from when winding up fundies, like throwing in Ex. 31 for fun. It's merely a reflection, which you can take or leave.) Thank God the Word was made flesh, and not print!

Greywizard 2 Jul

Paul, here's the blurb that accompanies the Theos blog:


"At a time when faith in institutions is waning, public conversations led by Theos serve to remind us of the timeless potential of religion to build community, to read the signs of the times, to cultivate wisdom and encourage human flourishing."


And yet you talk of God's commandments! The reason I am here is to try to make sure that that's not all you talk about. Here's a promise that religion and religious institutions can promote human flourishing. Having a shared day off a week is one way of promoting human flourishing,as Mark points out. If it's just a matter of keeping one of the commandments, it's irrelevant. But if it does promote human flourishing, as I think it probably does, then it makes sense. If you turn it into something religious, as one of our religious obligations, whether or not we can ever fulfil God's rather extravagant demands, then it's really irrelevant to Theos, I should have thought, and yet it comes up again and again.


Okay, you can say -- or at least the Jews can say: "We thought of it first." And they did, by golly, and gave it a nice religious gloss. But now that we're looking from the standpoint of human flourishing, we can say: "Yes, we like the idea. Lose the religious dimension and it looks good. Let's try it again." It's not a question of what we are free to do, but what would be best for all of us, all things considered.


One last point. You can't sin against reason. You can be irrational, and the reasons that you give can be poor or irrelevant, but the word 'sin' simply doesn't apply. That's only for you poor folk who have to worry about the unsatisfiable One who makes so many and such inhuman demands.


My 'one last point' was premature. There's a place for scorn, Paul, and it comes in when you go on with all sorts of irrelevant crap about protestants and what they call you poor catholics behind your backs, looking all saintly and smarmy. That's really off the topic with a vegeance. Stop worrying about protestants. Listen to what the popes say about them! Tit for tat. Is that what you were up to? Loving, is it, and doing what you will?

Paul Rodden 2 Jul

Your post also reminds me of a 'Media Monitoring' article, posted on here, November, 2006, Why Theos Will Fail.


It appears to me, that with this particular issue, a commandment of God is being sold on the benefits of material well-being (which has little to do with 'human flourishing' as a Natural Law philosopher would understand it), instead of it's relation to the Eternal Law of God (as a Natural Law philosopher would understand it).


The reason I'm concerned, is that you are being unusually cordial towards his article, Greywiz, but is that because Mark Pargeter has successfully neutered or watered down what any self-respecting Christian would accept as an absolute commandment, irrespective of any material benefit, in an attempt to make it acceptable to the secular palate?


To sell 'religion is good for you', in the same way that 'Guinness is good for you', I think not only shows contempt for the Law of God, but shows that the only time Theos will be listened to, is when they've watered it down to the secular palate, as the liberal protestants did in the 60s and 70s, by getting involved in Buddhism, ashrams, and the like, to somehow engage with the secular world of the hippy, and writing heterodox rubbish for the sake of getting acceptance. It's what the Catholic Church has condemned as what it calls, 'syncretism and false irenicism'.


That 'experiment' went horribly wrong, and the Church of England's definitely still paying for it. Unfortunately, I think this article shows that some Evangelicals are now merely stepping into those soulless shoes of the liberal protestants they vilified not so long ago, and making the same mistake. But because they're doing it about what they feel passionate about ('the public square'), it's somehow right for them.


You may recall that I work at an Evangelical Church. Well, earlier today, I posed a question to a couple of my Evangelical friends, and asked them to humour me: "Should we keep God's commandments because He commands them and that they are part of his Law, or because we are likely to benefit from them?". When there wasn't an agenda, and they didn't know the context, they agreed with me: that there might benefits, but that's not why we keep the commandments. We keep them because God commands them. That is, He is the Lord of the Universe as far as they're concerned, benefit or not. Which I find amusing, considering Joanna and Polly's responses. So, am I missing something, or is it resentment that a Catholic (the enemy) has stepped into the breech a supposed ally has just stepped out of?


Orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Catholics who don't have an agenda, seem to agree: the Law of God is the Law of God, period.


So, outside this forum, Greywiz, me and my mates at the Evangelical church are still as charitable as ever.

Greywizard 3 Jul

Gosh, Paul, it's so good of you to tell us. If you hadn't, I would never have guessed that there is no 'syncretism and false irenicism' from you. No, bless me, I would never have guessed!


But your sneering attitude towards those who diverge just a degree or two from your narrow orthodoxy is one reason why I think that religion is such a dangerous force in the world. Your orthodoxy is someone else's heterodoxy, and nothing in the world can show which of you is right. So snarl and sneer all you like, Paul, but Polly and and Joanna, at least, are human. And if you think you can reserve charity for you and your mates, you're wrong. You don't get to love by half measures. You're supposed to love -- did you read this somewhere? -- even your enemies!

Nicholas 3 Jul

No, Paul. The key point is that none of the religions can ever provide a moral reason for an ethical choice. If I don't work on Sunday because I choose to give higher priority to (say) playing with my children (who only get Saturday and Sunday off school) than to (say) polishing a report, that is an ethical choice. (And one that, as it happens, I personally would defend.)

But even if (as no-one can) I could be sure that some particular one of the myriad postulated gods was real, and even if (as no-one can) I could be sure that "don't work on Sunday" is a maxim that forms part of that god's "natural law" [for humans on this planet], I would not be behaving morally if I obeyed that maxim. I would be opting out of ethical choices, and just obeying what I (in good, ahem, faith) mindlessly deemed to be an order.

Obeying orders is one of the wickedest things humans do. It made Auschwitz possible. And it makes Akinola's persecution of homosexuals possible now.

So the BBC's website makes an elementary blunder by having a section entitled "Religion and Ethics". Even if (which none is) one religion was anything like true, it would still be orthogonal to ethics. The BBC might as well have "Flower arranging and ethics". Indeed, more justifiably, because I imagine there could be ethical choices about whether you use rare orchids, or copy a rival WI member's style.

Paul Rodden 3 Jul

"The key point is that none of the religions can ever provide a moral reason for an ethical choice." I agree. What's the problem? I think certain ends are binding on someone who calls themselves a Christian, but it's a matter of revelation, faith, and conscience, but there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians, yet make it up as they go along, and would disagree. As I said, there's no compunction on you or I to believe these things, you can believe and do what you like, yet you often imply there is some form of duress or force being applied (YHWH, priests, bishops, etc). You clearly are privy to things which are invisible to me and the Catholic Church.


I think I am being loving, because I try to see why you and Greywiz hold what you hold, and can therefore see why, within your own frame of reference, what I say is gibberish. That is, I try to see it from your perspective, and why what you say makes sense from your perspective. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, and they probably won't. Loving isn't exemplified by sentimentality, rolling over and having your tummy tickled, or totalitolerance, etc.. My problem is with ideas, not people.


As a Christian, by your standards, I'm supposed to be irrational, nasty, and emotive, etc., so I'm actually living up to your stereotype and expectations, aren't I? However also, by your own standards, you claim to be to be upright, moral, rational and objective.


So, it would seem I am living up to your caricature by my miserable, sneering behaviour (please feel free to add as many other negative adjectives to my character as you like), but I have often pointed this out if not admitted it. My problem is, that you seem to be failing to live up to your view of yourself as reasonable, objective, moral..., which in reality, tends to mirror mine, instead. I think I set a pretty good example of every negative expectation of what you would expect a Christian to be like, and show none of the positive virtues Christians should exemplify - you seem to be an excellent judge of my character! However, as you're clearly better (as you're constantly pointing out to me), in which way do you exemplify all the qualities of your perceived view of your own character?


My worldview and self-perception admits failure and mistakes. I consider that repentance and redemption are the only solution (failure being part of my nature). However, within your worldview and self-perception, there seems to be an over-optimistic mismatch between your worldview and self-perception, as claimed, and that exemplified in reality.


My failures and weaknesses correspond with reality, and I don't deny them. The sacred scriptures, combined with sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, have such a clear insight into my brokenness. So much so, that if they are that good at judging my sinful character, I'm willing to trust them for the promise of redemption of that character, which requires me to live desiring, willing, and praying to live out the precepts of the Faith, that is, the commandments of that Faith, not for any benefit, apart from the love of God, and through His grace alone. And no, that view's not only Protestant, it's very Catholic too, before you go down that route again.


I see us all as the problem as we share a common human nature. You seem to see us as the problem, so it is for you to prove how you are fundamentally different, positively, providing evidence of yourself as exemplars (which, so far, you have only posited, not exemplified), rather than your predominantly negative approach, that of merely pointing out my inadequacies, which I have exemplified, and posited.

Nicholas 3 Jul

Glad you agree, Paul, that "none of the religions can ever provide a moral reason for an ethical choice."

I don't understand your assertion that Christianity, for example, does not attempt to apply duress. Jesus is recorded as threatening offenders with hell fire. Do you say that such reports are garbled, and only foolish fundies cite them? (And conversely, the famous 'beatitudes' seem to me to offer bribes for good behaviour.)

I don't claim to be continuously upright etc. (You knew that, surely?)

The difference between us appears to be that I don't believe there is a supernatural redeemer, and, as a personal aesthetic choice, I find the very idea of a supernatural redeemer deeply disgusting.

In a wonderful edition of Something Understood on Radio 4 on 29 June, Judith French argued (though she did not put it so bluntly) that most of the religions are versions for grownups of the children's classic The Tiger who Came to Tea. In that, an imaginary tiger does bad things, but a real daddy comes home and makes all well again. In Judaism and Christianity, real bad things happen in the real world, and an imaginary ur-daddy will come, or come again. Or, we observe, not.

Paul Rodden 3 Jul

Hi Nicholas. In nearly all your examples, I find myself agreeing. But in most cases, that's because if I saw things through your eyes, which although I think are often received lies, parodies, or distortions of Christianity, I would reject it as well. The trouble is that in many cases, for A, you mean B, whereas for me, for A, I mean C.


I think this is the root of a lot, if not all the misunderstandings in here. 'Christianity', 'Islam', 'religion', 'secularism', are all hydra-like in their form and expression.


I suppose it comes down to how fairly we use examples. For example, Greywiz, uncharacteristically, recently talked up Polly and Joanna, for the sake of making a point because, at that moment, it suited his argument. So, he clutches at any possible ally or idea to bolster his case. He sides with Christians if it's expedient in the current context. If I happened to say something which happens to support a view he wants to promote against someone else, he'd suddenly support me. He's a sort of intellectual ninja.


I think this is very important for absolute truth (and also for the commandments), and I think at root of this is the relativist principle that "all's fair in love and war".


Many Christians have no other interpretive models for moral reasoning than those they have absorbed from their surrounding culture, namely cultural relativism, utilitarianism and deontology, through which they filter their interpretation of scripture and the commandments, which leads to both a minimalist ethical framework, and leads to ethical expediency. The philosophical implications and impact of what they've absorbed unquestioningly from their education and society don't even cross their minds.


What is out of favour, or just neglected, is virtue ethics, which is the basis of our ethical framework, which puts an extra-biblical responsibility onto the person, and so we believe that the commandments are part of a far bigger ethical enterprise, through synderesis and arete.


I find an ethic which is about excellence of character, rather than slavery to biblical principles (although incorporates them), is far more appealing, but goes beyond the letter to the supererogatory, which seems to be in line with both the Greatest Commandment, and Galatians 5, for example.


Maybe you don't 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.', Nicholas, but do you think 'Love your neighbor as yourself.', is wrong? If not, and you seek to fulfil this principle, then we're on the same side, as it's part of the principle of Natural Law, and for Catholics, the Natural Law is not the exclusive domain of Christians, but everyone, irrespective of whether you accept our religion or not, as it is both pre-Christian, and was first formalised within ancient Greek philosophy.


In one sense, it doesn't matter if one thinks the commandments are ordained by God or that they are for our benefit. What does matter is if a principle, such as a Sabbath day of rest, is sold on the basis of it's benefit to us, rather than being an innate good, irrespective of benefit (or imaginary tigers). If it's sold on benefit to us, then the good becomes relative. And so those that argue for flogging people to death by working in supermarkets 24/7 on poor wages, are making a perfectly reasonable ethical demand within their own frame of reference. As Aquinas pointed out, every action is based on a perceived good, from lying to genocide. What's right for them is right for them, and what's right for us, is right for us. And, as I've said before, it is then reduced to the privilege of power and violence: might makes right. The only alternative is to suggest objective goods which are innately good, irrespective of benefit, and thereby do not contain a moral motivation or reason within them. They are therefore goods that don't have to have a reason to be good, and are not good because a religion says so.

Greywizard 3 Jul

Actually, Paul, virtue ethics is very big in contemporary (secular) philosophy, but not as a set of absolute principles, or responses to commands. You might take a look at Stan van Hooft's "Understanding Virtue Ethics". It's a good introduction, but you won't find the idea of commandments. And Aristotle, who might be said to be the founder of virtue ethics, though of virtues as aspects of human nature, to be sure, but aspects that were for our good, for human flourishing. To the extent that something is not as aspect of human flourishing, it becomes a defect, such as foolhardiness is an excess of something that might otherwise be called courage.


The reason I cited Polly and Joanna is, not because I will use anyone to suit my purpose, but because they expressed their understanding of the sabbath rest as something conducing to human flourishing, and to be pursued for the sake of that (although I think Polly rather inconsistently took that back). I approve of doing this for the sake of human flourishing, and deprecate anything that is done from motives of obedience. I agree with Nicholas that this is one of the most wicked things that human beings can do.


As for the Golden Rule, as Austin Dacey points out in his book "The Secular Conscience", the Golden Rule, in one of its forms (Do unto others as you would have others do to you) is satisfied by wicked actions, so long as you can say, consistently, that you would not mind them doing the same to you (although you may endeavour to make sure that they can't). In its love form, as you express it (Love your neighbour as yourself), it tends to counsel cooperation with others whether or not they cooperate in return. Nor does it satisfy the conditions for being a natural law, since there is no indication that this rule would be an evolutionarily stable strategy.


In a fundamental sense it does make a big difference whether you think 'the commandments' are ordained by God or for our benefit. First, just calling moral principles commandments is wrong. Second, those who think in terms of commandments end up with different lists. Third, doing something because you think it is commanded is morally wrong.


You see, unlike you, I think there are moral facts. We can disagree about them. We can discuss them. We can endeavour to justify them. We can clarify them. But in the end, there is a common language of morality that we all share, and we can have intelligent and intelligible discussions within that common language. Hiving a bit of it off and saying that this is a natural law or a commandment of God settles nothing. We need to give reasons, in terms of benefits to humanity (and, arguably, other sensitive beings), why something is good or bad, right or wrong.


Lastly, where do get the presumption to dismiss everyone else as just absorbing 'relativism, utilitarianism, and deontology' from the surrounding culture? First, these are not the same. Utilitarianism and deontological theories of ethics are not relativistic. Second, very few people actually believe that morals are completely relative, that knifing someone is 'good for them' but 'not for us'. Third, religious people are not the only ones with a morality. Indeed, very often religious people have no morality at all, but just obedience, which is a very different thing.


So, which is it to be? A shared day of rest is a good thing for human beings, and of benefit to individuals and society? Or: A shared day of rest is God's commandment, and should be observed regardless of questions of benefit?

Paul Rodden 3 Jul

A couple of observations.


"So, which is it to be? A shared day of rest is a good thing for human beings, and of benefit to individuals and society? Or: A shared day of rest is God's commandment, and should be observed regardless of questions of benefit?" The first for non-believers, the second for believers. As I said, my problem is with a Christian promoting view 1., and I'm sure theologians like John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock would be more on my side, too.


In fact, it could be argued Mark Pargeter might be breaking the first commandment with the article focussing, as it does on serving the needs of our material bodies, which becomes another god before Him. Going to the gym would be better for me than going to Mass, by this logic.


Reciprocity (the Golden Rule), has very little to do with 'love your neighbour as yourself. The Golden rule is summed up more as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", which is very different.


I'm not going to suggest what you might read, because they'd be on Theological Virtue Ethics. Although commandments aren't mentioned in non-Christian virtue ethics, the Eternal Law and concepts of Natural Law are, and I would argue they amount to the same thing. That is, if St Paul is right, and the Law is indeed written on the heart, then you don't need it written down anywhere. That is, the commandments are integrated within Virtue Ethics, and that's why they're not explicit. Having it written down or codified, just helps. You'd disagree, and that's fine.


As to Utilitarianism, etc., I was speaking generally of some Christians as make a dog's dinner of ethical reasoning (I could have included emotivism, psychological egoism, situationism, etc.), and I agree that there are distinctions - of course there are - you just took the fact that I didn't make it explicit, as you do many times elsewhere, as a points-scoring exercise. :) As I've said before, many times you take me literally when it suits, and become deliberately obtuse when it suits... Again, as I've said before, Many Evangelical academics decry the ruined intellectual state of Evangelicalism.

Greywizard 3 Jul

Paul, you're allowed to make it up as you go along, but only if it hasn't been made up before. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the law of talion, namely, that the punishment must equal the harm done. The Golden Rule is expressed very clearly by Jesus in Mt 7.12 or Lk 6.31, that we should do unto others as we wish them to do unto us. You can't simply redefine the Golden Rule.


Love your neighbour as yourself is from Leviticus, as you know. And it is, as Rabbi Akiba says, the whole of the Torah. It is also attributed to Jesus as summing up the law. (Coincidence? I mean, after all, the gospels were written after Akiba flourished, as they say.) Notice how this version, as well as the other, dispenses with any reference to commandments or. Just love your neighbour. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) But it is still a modulation of the Golden Rule, and has some shortcomings. But so long as you remember that it is not a commandment, but something that underlies the moral point of view -- that is, you stand back, take a look at things without including your own preferences and desires, and then make a decision that is the best for everyone concerned, it probably has some merit. But don't try to play fast and loose with the the whole idea of the Golden Rule. This is really beneath you.


But what on earth do you mean by: "if St Paul is right, and the Law is indeed written on the heart, then you don't need it written down anywhere." It is quite clear that this law is not written on the heart. There is too much evil around for that. And besides, what constitutes an answer to 'love your neighbour as yourself' still needs a lot of discussion. It is not as clear as you would like to think. You may speak of the 'ruined intellectual state of Evangelicalism' (boy, these guys have got under your skin!), but there is nothing intellectually secure about your own position.


I mean, really! 'Mark Pargeter might be breaking the first commandment." Gosh, really! You're not serious?! Really! Let's ask God, shall we?

Scarthin Nick 4 Jul

At our village festival last weekend there was an open air church service which gave me the opportunity to see what I've been missing all these years - which to be honest, was not much - a milk and water sermon about celebration and shrill, happy-clappy music accompanied by a flurry of Nazi-esque salutes and outstretched palms by people who feel no need to make such displays on the other six days of the week.



I asked myself: what was the divine service about? A sense of community? Well maybe, but we've got one anyway. I don't think that particular service added anything in the way of extras to it. Religious instruction? There was very little in the way of scriptural content - the main theme being "let's be grateful we live in a nice part of the world." A common sentiment among residents but hardly an exclusive religious observation. Or is it to keep an eye on the faithful, to make sure that the Sabbath although a day off work is nevertheless a time for stern and noble thoughts over ephemeral pleasures. That may have been the case in more puritanical times and possibly still is among dour Presbyterians but probably doesn't apply in this case. In short, is there any point at all to it, other than the fact it is a form of ritual, whether understood or not, from which the regular worshippers derive pleasure. (I can't speak a word of Italian but that doesn't stop me enjoying a performance of the Marriage of Figaro.) and long may it continue for those who want it, as long as it is understood that it is no more worthy of respect than other forms of leisure or improving activity on our combined day off.



The only people, I know of, who appear to put their Sabbath to practical religious use are the Jehovah's Witnesses. They all learn the same selected text, at the same time all over the world, cross-reference it with passages from the Bible (at a friend's JW wedding there was a partridge-like whirr of Bibles being thumbed throughout) they then go out on the streets and ring our doorbells to tell us about it - and we, secular and religious alike, shut the door in their faces. Come on, don't tell me you haven't all done it at some time!

ew.walgrove 4 Jul

Sunday trading has an effect on a local community. Not only does it have an impact in terms of noise and congestion, it also hits community activities. For some that might be getting together with others at church meetings, for others it might be playing football in the local league.



Healthy communities are communities with greater levels of what sociologists call 'social capital' - volunteering and numerous social networks. This is very important for the mental and physical health of individuals in the community, and also leads to lower levels of disorder and a greater positive community spirit.



Yet every voluntary organisation, club or society depends on people having time off at the same time as everyone else. So with the erosion of Sunday as a different day from all the rest, communities are of greater danger of increasing fragmentation.

Greywizard 5 Jul

Hi, welcome to ew.walgrove (apologies if you've already been here). I never thought of its effect on communities, voluntary activities, and such like. Not a bad point. Of course, in my experience, a lot of voluntary activities take place on other days, very often weekday evenings, things like the Legion, Rotary, etc. Very few of these meet on Sunday, for example. So, I wonder how important this consideration is. I just don't know, but I wonder.


There's another point too. Weekends have been traditional times for families to get together. But this had a detrimental effect, I should have thought, on holiday destinations, which tended to be overused at the weekend. So, while having a shared day of rest may seem to be advantageous, perhaps it would be just as effective if empolyers made sure that their employees had a shared family day off. That shouldn't be too hard to coordinate.


Of course, this might make it more difficult to get the extended family together, so perhaps national holidays would serve the purpose here. I understand that Sunday trading affects people who want to go to church, and efforts have often been made to reserve Sunday as a shared day of rest because of Christian traditions, but when most people no longer share those traditions, except at Christmas and Easter, say, should this be a determining factor? Just a question, not an answer.

Scarthin Nick 6 Jul

Weekends and bank holidays may be traditional opportunities for families to get together but as Greywizard suggests in his post, this does not mean a good time is, perforce, had by all - come to sunny (or currently raining) Matlock Bath in season and you will see temperatures and tempers rising in the nose-to-tail queue of cars stretching down the A6 as far as Ambergate. Every so often a car will break the queue, do an aggressive u turn and hurtle down the relatively clear carriageway back to Derby or wherever, with father snarling "Sheerrrduppp!" to the fractious family in the back of the car.



I believe there is some research that puts forward the theory that Christmas and family holidays are often catalysts for divorce proceedings - many peoples' lives are so busy with family members at work or doing their own independent thing that when they are thrown together for any amount of time they discover that they don't really know each other any more and do not necessarily like what they now see.



To avoid getting to the stage of divorce - how should families spend quality time together in the first place? One answer came from Sylvia Lancaster (mother of the Goth girl, Sophie, so cruelly murdered by 15 year old chavs last year) She went around Europe looking at drinking cultures among youngsters. In Italy, there is nothing like the problem of binge drinking among the young we have over here - a key factor in this that families spend meal times together more often than not - rather than more not than often as we do. Of course, it being Itlay we can't ignore the Catholic church being another factor - how much or how little, I am not in a position to say - perhaps this would be a good point for Paul to come in . . .



Paul Rodden 6 Jul

I very much agree, ew.walgrove. But I think your argument also includes working late into the evenings during the week like many do, too. I think it is not a 'Sunday only' problem.


It is a good reason why having leisure time is very vital, yet also another reason why tagging it onto the Sabbath is merely a cheapening of the Gospel by trying to make religion relevant, where it isn't at all relevant to the non-religious.


I think it's important for Christians to set a good example of how human persons should be perceived (in the image of God and with supreme dignity) and how relationships (solidarity) should be lived, and therefore stand up for those who are bullied into working long hours for very poor pay, otherwise it remains merely an armchair pastime - commandment of God, or not.


In response to Scarthin Nick's post, Italy, like Ireland, is now merely 'culturally Catholic' and, in some senses, their decline in terms of divorce, abortion, anti-social behaviour is happening more rapidly, and for these countries, it's like the equivalent of countries that are released from totalitarianism - a rapid swing to the opposite, yet at the same time, politically, they often replace one repressive system with another (cultural hedonism) - just more of the same. It's not the Catholicism that's been repressive, but clericalism, a human disease. Clericalism has arisen because lay Catholics haven't been taught the faith, but a mish-mash of superstitious hogwash and psychobabble by dissenting or corrupt bishops, priests, and religious (monks, friars, nuns, sisters), especially since the 60s.


Wherever Catholic priests and the laity are living their vocation authentically, the congregations are growing, and where they're trying to be relevant and 'hip', the congregations are dwindling. People today want to know where Christianity is different, not the same. The way that Catholicism's different (I can't talk for other churches) is that reasons for doing things aren't focussed on personal benefit (as if God were a vending machine), but on Christ crucified: a constant dying to self, where the worship and lifestyle don't focus around me and meeting my needs. For us the worship is an offering to God - a sacrifice, like keeping the commandments - not some emotional fix. Some like to accuse us of 'works'. Well, I find more in the New Testament which upholds the view that works are absolutely necessary, although not sufficient for the Christian life, but it is grace alone that saves, than the view that faith alone saves, devoid of works.


So, I think the problems of families are to be found in a mindset: individualism, or egocentricity. Again, I think it spans the secular and the sacred. I can't say how many times I hear Christians moaning that they left a church because "...it wasn't meeting my needs", in the same way wives/husbands in those churches "don't meet my needs", so they just get divorced and remarry or leave that church and start one that does meet their needs. The logical conclusion is a church of a different holy trinity - me, myself, and I - one person with one nature. In short, submitting to someone else, or something like a commandment, is the very thing they reject.


This to me, seems to be an inversion of the Gospel, and is often at the root of my criticism of bible-alone Christianity: that each person is autonomous and capable of interpreting scripture correctly, as in the secular sphere everyone is able to judge things through their own frame of reference. Everyone is king, whilst the King has been dethroned. Servanthood and dying to self don't seem to be much in evidence or favour. What happens if I use this mindset for the 10 Commandments?: I believe they're for my benefit.


Some Christians believe in the 'Evangelical Counsels' of poverty, chastity, obedience, the Commandments of God, the Commandments of the Church, the Corporal and Spiritual Acts of Mercy, and other such acts of sacrifice and service. Some secularists believe in the principles behind these, too, although they wouldn't express them in this way, and would be motivated by probity, virtue, magnanimity, and where "My word is my bond". Conversely, we need to evaluate if the values of personal autonomy, personal judgement, and personal interest, where the end justifies the means, promoted in many churches, 'saving souls' no matter what harm was inflicted or freedoms curtailed (what some in here call 'theocracy') and society (plutocracy and oligarchy, whilst claiming democracy), are true, or whether they are values which are merely held ubiquitously or because they happen to benefit us.


I think the problems of society are the result of the Gospel becoming inverted, and some Christians are colluding with this by buying into, or incorporating, certain secular philosophical principles for the sake of relevance to the public square. Which, as I said before, has more in common with the 'social gospel' of the 20th century. The 1930 Anglican Lambeth conference started the ball rolling by allowing contraception, and in 1931, Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii, re-affirming the constant teaching of all the churches up until that point on the ends of marriage and the conjugal act. That's why the commandments are immutable: because, even in the Old Testament, once they were broken, it was always the beginning of a slippery slope to perdition. And normally, what was it that was being done rather than following the commandments? That which benefited them.


The Italians and Irish are living the last remnants of the good of previous generations. Christian families which are following the teachings of the Church on life and the family are flourishing. The flourishing is the result of following the teachings of the church. A quest for flourishing itself, devoid of this, will end in failure as it's in the same egocentric mould as those who reject the teachings of the Church. In both, the aim if that of benefit to self.

Greywizard 6 Jul

Paul said:


"1930 Anglican Lambeth conference started the ball rolling by allowing contraception, and in 1931, Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii, re-affirming the constant teaching of all the churches up until that point on the ends of marriage and the conjugal act."


Well, bless my heart, I wondered when someone would come up with the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the one where they finally saw sense and decided that, after all, perhaps women's lives were more than just 'barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.' Now, since we're talking about sacred times, this is surely just the ideal moment to introduce this theme. Of course, Scarthin Nick's report about the Italian family is all wrong. (It probably is, given present demogaphics.) But let's deal with women, give them the choice between the lottery of conception and birth control. Perhaps we should shroud them in cloth from head to toe as well, and give them a meshed slit to look through onto the world around.


Give me strength, Paul, where on earth do you come from? What we need to emphasise is difference! That's what all the ritual and catalogues of belief are for, after all, to distinguish ourselves from others, to mark ourselves off as better than other people, more faithful to the truth, more ... oh, what's the use?


Everything to you is either the truth or the terrible individualism of modern life which tears the heart out of everything. It's not either/or. Where does this arrogance and pride come from? The relativism/individualism that you talk about is, to be sure, an aspect of some aspects of modern life in the culturally deracinated populations of big cities. Sure it is. And some of it is, as Salman Rushie depicts in his novel, The Satanic Verses, terribly disorienting. But you talk as though all modern life is like this. It's not, and even where it is, it's not simply a matter of either/or. And as for women, most of them would take the noughts of the 2000's to the 1950's and 1960's any day. I mean, get a life!


But to suppose that Pius XI or Paul VI had some sort of answer is about as myopic as it gets. I mean, where does this sort of bull**** come from?


"Christian families which are following the teachings of the Church on life and the family are flourishing. The flourishing is the result of following the teachings of the church. A quest for flourishing itself, devoid of this, will end in failure as it's in the same egocentric mould as those who reject the teachings of the Church."


I've seen lots of flourishing families, and very few of them are not using birth control. Very few of them I suppose, come within your understanding of flourishing. (But, oh well, you must be right, since this is what the church says, after all.) The only large family I know is a doctor's family, and they have lots of money to deal with the kids. Really, Paul, get a life!

Paul Rodden 7 Jul

As usual, Greywiz, if I'd have been 'et-et', you'd come over all either/or. As usual, you know what I mean, but are being deliberately pedantic for the sake of scoring points. Well, that's up to you. If I'm arrogant, then we're nicely suited to each other. I'm weak in all sorts of other ways, too, as are my arguments.


I believe I need redemption as a result, but I'm presuming you don't from what you say here - Nicholas finds it 'disgusting', and Zak doesn't seem to have much time for it either.

Greywizard 7 Jul

Hey, Paul, you can believe what you like, or claim that I twist and turn with the best Jesuit you can name, but when you present it as the truth for all people, as though the church alone, or even your interpretation of the church's beliefs, somehow held the truth itself, without question, hesitation or possibility of error, then you are justly, it seems to me, held up to ridicule. (And, by the way, et/et or aut/aut is neither here nor there!)


You see, I don't claim to know the truth. All I claim is that no one knows the truth, absolutely, and without any question. So I can see in people that I meet, ordinary, everyday people muddling through their lives without the assistance of absolutisms and final truth, but trying their best to be decent folk, real, genuine human beings, who don't deserve to be held in the bold contempt that you direct towards everyone but those who agree with you and the crypto-Nazi Benedict, real human beings, who deserve some respect. But it really gets my dander up when you so nicely hold that everyone but you, and those who interpret the ten commandments as you do, are on some kind of slipper slope -- where was it ... ah, yes, to perdition!


I ask you again. What planet do you come from? Because, clearly, there are no real people there.

jonhunt 8 Jul

Paul


I agree with some of what you say. You cite:


"..Everyone is king, whilst the King has been dethroned. Servanthood and dying to self don't seem to be much in evidence or favour..."


But this is not a criticism of following the Bible, it is a criticism of Christianity that only pays lip-service to the Bible. You cannot read the gospels without picking up these strong messages!



It is equally a criticism that could be - and was - levelled against historical catholicism where servanthood and self-sacrifice was seen as something for an elite few who became monks, nuns and priests.



I think you are in danger of placing the authority of the Church above that of the Word. The discussion of the Sabbath in the New Testament is an incredibly important development of Judaism. Jesus argues that God's laws are (at least in part) made for the benefit of mankind. This enabled Ss Paul and Peter for instance to talk to Greeks and Romans who were not going to take on the ritualism and restrictions of traditional Judaism.



Although you may see this as leading to selfish Christianity, that's only the result of a partial reading. What it does do is to enable Christians to function in the modern sphere, which is not so dissimilar to the ancient world. It means it's possible to respond, when society at large says, for example, let's do away with monogamy by saying: hang on, it's there for a purpose, for our benefit, let's try to understand what those benefits are.


Greywizard 8 Jul

Jonhunt, while I sympathise with your point of view (and as you may have noticed I do not sympathise with Paul's), you can't really slip so comfortably from something's having a purpose to questions of benefit, for the purpose might be quite aside from benefit.


Let's suppose, as you do, that monogamy has a purpose, and because of that must be preserved. It could be argued, and has by many Christians, that the purpose that monogamy serves is defeated by the legalisation of divorce. So, regardless of the disbenefit of some monogamous unions to those involved, the purpose is still served by disastrous relationships, that is, regardless of the disbenefit to those indivudals, because binding relationships are alone what can preserve the purpose of monogamy.


If you say, on the other hand, that broken relationships do not satisfy the criteria of the purpose of monogamous relationships, and should be permitted to be terminated, then you raise the question, as Paul does, over the status of the value you ascribe to monogramous relationships, since the purpose is not just the benefit, but something which may or may not accrue to individuals as benefit. Otherwise, we should just talk about benefit simpliciter.


Thus you are seen either to subvert something which has a purpose (because prescribed by the Word or qualified high church official, like the pope), or to define purpose in terms of benefit. Now here, surely, Paul is right, and Jesus is wrong, if he defines sabbath keeping solely in terms of human benefit (as he seems to do when he says that the sabbath was made for man and not the other way about), since Jesus' dictum relativises sabbath observance by relating it to benefit. This is something which Paul wants to deny, because he sees, clearly, that if he doesn't, the whole idea of (divine) purpose falls to the ground.


Of course, you might argue that God is a untilitarian, and has set up the world in such a way as to be patient of utlitarian arrangements which maximise benefits to human beings. But then, of course, as I think is true in any event, we can just cancel through by God in the equations, and just deal with the effects of our actions on other people -- a much more humane arrangement by far, as I think you can see.

jonhunt 9 Jul

Greywizard


Last things first. If I were to argue that God is entirely utilitarian, that would not mean you could "cancel" him from the equations. The problem with utilitarianism is that humanity is incapable of doing the calculations to maximise its own happiness. God's perfect knowledge might be helpful.



Your response on monogamy seems to sum up the issue, which undoubtedly the Christian Church has struggled with. Let's avoid details for fear of changing the topic but it is about the question of second best. Humans are flawed and varied creatures and if the best option does not work out, what's the second best? The gospels shifted personal conduct away from the legal system towards it being a matter of accountability to God - and hence requiring salvation. Oddly enough Muslims, who do have a professedly legalistic religion, often understand Christianity better than do Christians.



So far as the Sabbath goes then, believers have a twin requirement (and desire) to take a weekly period of rest and to spend time in worship and spiritual reflection. If society at large no longer has those twin requirements, is the Sabbath principle still needed? The utilitarianism, you mention, suggests that for society this period of rest is a well tried and tested part of life - and that families and extended families benefit from having it at the same time reasonably often. So there is no strong case that the second best is much different from the best - only the commercial pressure for more shopping.

Subscribe to debates Open RSS Feed

The Current Debate

Theos will host a current debate about every two weeks.  Do login regularly to keep up to date with the discussions and be a part of the ongoing conversation.

View the Current Debate

Archived Current Debates

23 JUL
Can Europe survive without Christianity? 42 Comments | Latest 29 Jul
16 JUL
Should Britain ban the Burka? 32 Comments | Latest 23 Jul
09 JUL
Is more news good news? 4 Comments | Latest 13 Jul
02 JUL
25 JUN
Are we all progressives now? 5 Comments | Latest 27 Jun
11 JUN
04 JUN
28 MAY
21 MAY
Do we need electoral reform? (Part 2) 9 Comments | Latest 28 May
14 MAY
Do we need electoral reform? 4 Comments | Latest 19 May
30 APR
Does inequality matter? 26 Comments | Latest 14 May
22 APR
Does political substance matter? 6 Comments | Latest 27 Apr
15 APR
Should governments socially engineer? 4 Comments | Latest 15 Apr
09 APR
What do Christians want? 15 Comments | Latest 15 Apr
01 APR
Shall the religious inherit the earth? 5 Comments | Latest 06 Apr
18 MAR
Can human rights be neutral? 6 Comments | Latest 21 Mar
04 MAR
How should Catholics vote? 8 Comments | Latest 17 Mar
21 FEB
11 FEB
Is the BBC marginalising religion? 7 Comments | Latest 17 Feb
04 FEB
26 JAN
What are your social attitudes? 2 Comments | Latest 27 Jan
20 JAN
How much is a banker worth? 5 Comments | Latest 25 Jan
13 JAN
What is character for? 8 Comments | Latest 16 Jan
05 JAN
Who will win in 2010? 18 Comments | Latest 13 Jan
21 DEC
24 NOV
Have we misunderstood Creationism? 31 Comments | Latest 04 Dec
18 NOV
04 NOV
Should MPs be better paid? 30 Comments | Latest 18 Nov
29 OCT
Can neurotheology explain faith? 23 Comments | Latest 03 Nov
23 OCT
15 OCT
Is it compassionate to help someone die? 2 Comments | Latest 20 Oct
07 OCT
Why should children study religion? 9 Comments | Latest 09 Oct
01 OCT
Does The Sun matter? 21 Comments | Latest 07 Oct
22 SEP
14 SEP
Can Nations be “Christian”? 31 Comments | Latest 22 Sep
21 AUG
Should al-Megrahi have been released? 19 Comments | Latest 02 Sep
17 AUG
Can we live without myths? 16 Comments | Latest 21 Aug
10 AUG
Does Facebook enrich relationships? 13 Comments | Latest 15 Aug
27 JUL
17 JUL
06 JUL
How should we be governed? 32 Comments | Latest 16 Jul
29 JUN
22 JUN
Why do we not say thank you? 6 Comments | Latest 24 Jun
16 JUN
How should faith groups work together? 8 Comments | Latest 21 Jun
05 JUN
29 MAY
Can technology improve democracy? 7 Comments | Latest 31 May
22 MAY
Is tolerance enough? 37 Comments | Latest 29 May
14 MAY
Are MPs corrupt? 43 Comments | Latest 22 May
07 MAY
30 APR
Should conscience be silenced? 29 Comments | Latest 07 May
23 APR
(How) should we celebrate JG Ballard? 6 Comments | Latest 27 Apr
16 APR
Do we need a ten commandments of blogging? 17 Comments | Latest 22 Apr
14 APR
Why do we believe in ghosts? 10 Comments | Latest 16 Apr
07 APR
Does it all come down to rights? 14 Comments | Latest 13 Apr
01 APR
Do world leaders understand their citizens? 15 Comments | Latest 06 Apr
24 MAR
Where is Islam today? 46 Comments | Latest 31 Mar
10 MAR
Should the Cardinal get a peerage? 24 Comments | Latest 24 Mar
02 MAR
What is Darwin's legacy? 63 Comments | Latest 10 Mar
23 FEB
Can we all get what we deserve? 16 Comments | Latest 01 Mar
16 FEB
Is the left rediscovering faith? 18 Comments | Latest 23 Feb
02 FEB
Does Darwinism need rescuing? 58 Comments | Latest 09 Feb
28 JAN
Is the future African? 19 Comments | Latest 02 Feb
20 JAN
Are we expecting too much of Barack Obama? 10 Comments | Latest 26 Jan
06 JAN
Do we have a moral duty to spend? 17 Comments | Latest 19 Jan
19 DEC
What's Christmas for? 32 Comments | Latest 26 Dec
09 DEC
Is the birth of Christ relevant? 112 Comments | Latest 19 Dec
08 DEC
Should the Church advertise? 27 Comments | Latest 09 Dec
24 NOV
Does Darwin matter? 67 Comments | Latest 01 Dec
11 NOV
Has America changed? 65 Comments | Latest 24 Nov
03 NOV
Who will atheist buses benefit? 105 Comments | Latest 10 Nov
27 OCT
15 OCT
09 OCT
Why are we afraid of supporting marriage? 19 Comments | Latest 15 Oct
02 OCT
Am I my brother’s banker? 14 Comments | Latest 08 Oct
18 SEP
When is an athlete a para-athlete? 8 Comments | Latest 27 Sep
04 SEP
How shall we respond to Darfur? 7 Comments | Latest 16 Sep
07 AUG
What did Solzhenitsyn ever do for us? 59 Comments | Latest 21 Aug
24 JUL
Creation or evolution: Do we have to choose? 178 Comments | Latest 06 Aug
30 JUN
Do we need to observe a Sabbath? 40 Comments | Latest 09 Jul
12 JUN
29 MAY
Should Turkey join the European Union? 30 Comments | Latest 12 Jun
17 MAY
08 MAY
How should we tackle radical Islamism? 45 Comments | Latest 16 May
24 APR
Are hybrids humans? 61 Comments | Latest 01 May
09 APR
Is climate change rhetoric helpful? 84 Comments | Latest 23 Apr
27 MAR
Do we need 'institutional' religion? 107 Comments | Latest 09 Apr
15 MAR
UK: Christian or secular? 95 Comments | Latest 26 Mar
26 FEB
Are we naturally religious? 85 Comments | Latest 14 Mar
14 FEB
31 JAN
Should we ban marketing to children? 32 Comments | Latest 12 Feb
17 JAN
Has Christianity been a force for good? 19 Comments | Latest 29 Jan
03 JAN
13 DEC
29 NOV
12 NOV
Can you have science without ethics? 40 Comments | Latest 29 Nov
01 NOV
What is education for? 28 Comments | Latest 12 Nov
19 OCT
Has science buried God? 60 Comments | Latest 31 Oct
21 SEP
Can you call religion a virus? 39 Comments | Latest 06 Oct
06 SEP
30 JUL
Do good patriots make good citizens? 34 Comments | Latest 08 Aug
12 JUL
How do we counter terrorism? 56 Comments | Latest 27 Jul
28 JUN
Can secularism learn to love pluralism? 25 Comments | Latest 12 Jul
19 APR
06 APR
Is fashion a force for good or ill? 20 Comments | Latest 18 Apr
21 MAR
01 MAR
Can you cure affluenza? 39 Comments | Latest 19 Mar
10 FEB
30 JAN
Is religion the cause of war? 39 Comments | Latest 07 Feb
03 JAN
Is the nuclear deterrent immoral? 35 Comments | Latest 19 Jan
20 DEC
Spirit of Christmas 20 Comments | Latest 27 Dec
23 NOV
Christmas is cancelled? 51 Comments | Latest 18 Dec
03 NOV
The Dawkins Delusion 152 Comments | Latest 28 Nov