There is nothing to gain from admiring fallacious Christian apologists and authors--which includes most Christian apologists--other than an irrelevant sense of respect for tradition and perhaps a sense of contentment or relief at being in agreement with random figures of "authority." In many cases, the more popular Christian "authorities" are guilty of more fallacies, errors, and heresies than others. C.S. Lewis does not disappoint in this regard (and I mean that in a completely ironic way, for he will be quite disappointing to a rationalistic Christian).
Moving further into his chapters on Christian ethics in Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis eventually reveals the nature of his virtue ethics, an approach to morality that emphasizes attitudes, intentions, and personal growth more than actions themselves. It is well into the book that Lewis directly describes part of his welcoming stance towards virtue ethics:
"We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it--whether you did it willingly or unwillingly, sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake. But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to build up the internal quality or character called a 'virtue', and it is this quality or character that really matters." (80)
It is true that acting justly without any concern for morality itself renders a person unjust and wicked, but what follows is not that an inner mindset or character is what matters most. A person's moral status is inevitably reflected in what the believe and what they do. Of course it is morally necessary to have valid motives for living rightly; however, actions matter more than attitudes ever could. One dangerous ramification of thinking the inverse is that a society full of people who hold to virtue ethics, as did C.S. Lewis, will trivialize random acts of injustice or stupidity in favor of calling for the cultivation of inward character.
This is why evangelical Christians are more likely to condemn a misunderstood definition of lust than rape and why they are more likely to shun hatred (when hatred isn't sinful by default) than unbiblical forms of torture. An emphasis on inward attitudes over outward action easily leads to a culture of tolerance or atrocities, and God never prescribes legal punishments for mere attitudes. It should be obvious to any Christian that adultery is worse than lust, that physical assault is worse than even unjust hatred, and that blasphemy is worse than prioritizing material things over spiritual things. After all, Yahweh does not merely condemn the latter in all three cases: he demands specific punishments for them.
A statement that shortly follows confirms that Lewis is more focused on subjective attitudes than actually carrying out the commands of the Bible or, inversely, not practicing that which it condemns:
"We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules: whereas He really wants people of a particular sort." (80)
There is no contradiction between saying that the Biblical God wants obedience to specific moral obligations and people of a particular sort. In fact, to be the kind of person that God wants, one must be willing to obey him. Jesus himself says in John 14:15 that those who love him will keep his commands. It is impossible to truly develop virtuous character without acknowledging and carrying out God's revealed instructions. Moreover, Biblical ethics is not primarily about developing virtue, as one is by definition obligated to do that whatever is obligatory no matter what one feels, wants, or experiences. Thus, on the Christian worldview, living in accordance with Mosaic Law and the words of Jesus is a requirement in it's own sake. Paul even admits that this is the whole reason people are saved to begin with in Romans 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment