The issue of Ethics and the World’s Religions made a significant impression on me while reading The Doctrine of the Christian Life by John M. Frame. As I understand, not all the great religions have ethical codes and not all religions even acknowledge a personal supreme being. Even more, not all religions require worship. Yet, all systems of thought include belief in something that is self-sufficient and not dependent on anything else. Philosophies, even though they claim to be secular, acknowledge something that is “not depending on anything else” and thus “divine” according Roy Clouser’s definition found in The Myth of Religious Neutrality. For Christians, that self-sufficient Being is our biblical God.
The point to be here is that nobody is really an atheist. When people turn away from worshipping the one true God, they do not reject absolutes in general. Instead, such people are really worshipping idols, as Paul teaches in Romans 1:18-32. In essences, there is no real distinction between the ethics of world religions and the traditions of secular ethics. The more explicitly religious systems typically advocate worship, observe religious holidays, and promote prayer and ceremony. However, the less explicitly religious systems do not. Both explicitly religious systems and the traditions of secular ethics basis their thinking and living on something that is not dependent on anything else. As noted by John M. Frame,
As typical with John M. Frame’s writing, he divides the ethical approaches of the world’s religions into three types: ethics based on fate (situational or teleological), ethics as self-realization (existential), and ethics as law without the Gospel (normative). The absolute moral standard must be an absolute person and the only absolute Person is the God of the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is unique in teaching that the supreme moral authority is God. Other religions and philosophies proclaim absolutes, but those absolutes are not personal. While other worldviews, like polytheism, teach the existence of supernatural persons, these people are not absolute. Yet, if morality must be based on One who is both personal and absolute, then the one true God of the Holy Bible is the only sustainable candidate. I agree with Professor Frame that the fatalist religions cannot supply an adequate basis for morality. One cannot claim knowledge of morality from observing fate, because such claim is both rational and irrational.
Another type of more explicitly religious ethics can be found in the monist religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Clearly, such monism presents the sharpest possibly contrast with biblical Christianity. However with monism, the root problem is that ethics is subordinated to metaphysics and epistemology. For the Christian, the problem is very different: God made human beings different from Himself, but reflecting His glory. Yet, in monism the issue is essential impersonal: dispelling illusions about metaphysical separations. As Professor Frame notes,
I agree with Professor Frame’s critique of fatalism and monism has centered on the impersonalism of those positions. A worldview in which the highest reality is impersonal is incapable of providing a basis for ethical decisions. Although other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christian heresies base their ethics on the revelation of a personal absolute like Christians, these religions, indeed all religions other than biblical Christianity, are religions of work-righteousness. That is religions whose members try to seek moral status by doing good works. However, this form of religion is directly opposed to the biblical Gospel, which states that even our best efforts and works are not enough to gain God’s favor (see Isaiah 64:6; Romans 8:8). The world’s only hope comes in Jesus Christ (see Romans 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:8-10). Thus, the only hope for all the world is the Cross of Jesus Christ! In essence, all three types of non-Christians religions offer us, at best, law without the grace and love of the Gospel. This grace and love is only possible through the absolute being of on the one true God of the Holy Bible. For all three forms of non-Christian religion, ethics is obedience to the law without the hope of forgiveness of sins. Even more, in all three forms, even the law is questionable because we cannot specify its content in an impersonalist universe.
The point to be here is that nobody is really an atheist. When people turn away from worshipping the one true God, they do not reject absolutes in general. Instead, such people are really worshipping idols, as Paul teaches in Romans 1:18-32. In essences, there is no real distinction between the ethics of world religions and the traditions of secular ethics. The more explicitly religious systems typically advocate worship, observe religious holidays, and promote prayer and ceremony. However, the less explicitly religious systems do not. Both explicitly religious systems and the traditions of secular ethics basis their thinking and living on something that is not dependent on anything else. As noted by John M. Frame,
The great division in mankind is not between those who worship a god and others who do not. Rather, it is between those who worship the true God and those who worship false gods, or idols. False worship may not involve rites or ceremonies, but it always involves the attribution of aseity to something.
As typical with John M. Frame’s writing, he divides the ethical approaches of the world’s religions into three types: ethics based on fate (situational or teleological), ethics as self-realization (existential), and ethics as law without the Gospel (normative). The absolute moral standard must be an absolute person and the only absolute Person is the God of the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is unique in teaching that the supreme moral authority is God. Other religions and philosophies proclaim absolutes, but those absolutes are not personal. While other worldviews, like polytheism, teach the existence of supernatural persons, these people are not absolute. Yet, if morality must be based on One who is both personal and absolute, then the one true God of the Holy Bible is the only sustainable candidate. I agree with Professor Frame that the fatalist religions cannot supply an adequate basis for morality. One cannot claim knowledge of morality from observing fate, because such claim is both rational and irrational.
Another type of more explicitly religious ethics can be found in the monist religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Clearly, such monism presents the sharpest possibly contrast with biblical Christianity. However with monism, the root problem is that ethics is subordinated to metaphysics and epistemology. For the Christian, the problem is very different: God made human beings different from Himself, but reflecting His glory. Yet, in monism the issue is essential impersonal: dispelling illusions about metaphysical separations. As Professor Frame notes,
As with the religious fatalist, the monist has no personal basis for ethics. His sense of obligation must come from the impersonal nature or the universe itself…. however … an impersonal reality can provide no basis for ethical standards.
I agree with Professor Frame’s critique of fatalism and monism has centered on the impersonalism of those positions. A worldview in which the highest reality is impersonal is incapable of providing a basis for ethical decisions. Although other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christian heresies base their ethics on the revelation of a personal absolute like Christians, these religions, indeed all religions other than biblical Christianity, are religions of work-righteousness. That is religions whose members try to seek moral status by doing good works. However, this form of religion is directly opposed to the biblical Gospel, which states that even our best efforts and works are not enough to gain God’s favor (see Isaiah 64:6; Romans 8:8). The world’s only hope comes in Jesus Christ (see Romans 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:8-10). Thus, the only hope for all the world is the Cross of Jesus Christ! In essence, all three types of non-Christians religions offer us, at best, law without the grace and love of the Gospel. This grace and love is only possible through the absolute being of on the one true God of the Holy Bible. For all three forms of non-Christian religion, ethics is obedience to the law without the hope of forgiveness of sins. Even more, in all three forms, even the law is questionable because we cannot specify its content in an impersonalist universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment
God bless you! You are loved by God (Romans 5:5).