Perhaps what we struggle with here is the difference between sin and vice. A sin can be forgiven, and the memory of it removed from our consciousness, as either an individual or as a people.
A vice, however, is not eliminated by forgiveness. A vice, like lust, anger, pride, or I think, racism, must be eliminated over a long struggle that changes attitudes and feelings, be they individual or corporate. I don't think our church, or many others, has dealt with this as well as we have with individual acts of sinfulness.
But Jesus famously did, when he commented on the 10 Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount. There he clearly showed that failing to perform sinful acts is not enough. It does not address the root attitudes/vices. Our thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and perspectives need to be converted as well.
So the question is not that of forgiveness only. Forgiving an act of violence, for instance, leaves the perpetrator and the victim off the hook regarding the underlying anger or resentment that may lie below the act. I wish we had been more well trained in the conversion of vices into virtues, not just in the forgiveness of particular sins.
And now I have a reading recommendation for any who wish to pursue this. Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World.
Please see my blog on this subject in the Back to God Ministries' "Think Christian." Commentary. I stand with you on this subject, but most of the readers of that blog have responded negatively.
There is a great deal of academic work in this field, and most MBA programs have a course in Business Ethics. But knowing and doing have long been separate items. I too published a book in Christian Ethics (The Moral Disciple, Eerdmans) and one related to global poverty (Less than $2.00 a Day, Eerdmans). The problem is not a lack of reflection on the topic, but a lack of action. It could perhaps be promoted within the church in classes, sermons, and activities. The big foe, however, is economic liberalism, which holds that if a transaction is legal, it is OK, as long as it follows the rules. That certainly needs to be challenged. Let's keep working at it.
As is true in all human action, there is a mix of nature and nurture involved. I recently watched a series on the Science channel in which a neurologist examined the brain patterns of psycyopaths. He found that they did have a unique set of physical characteristics that occured mentally. He then had his own brain scanned, and found he exhibited the same characteristics. When he asked his friends if they thought he was like a psychopath, they said yes, "you're controlling, arrogant, can't be corrected, etc." The scientist credited his parents with raising him in such a way that the tendencies of his genetic/neurological problem did not arise to the level of action. I think it is much the same way with all of us. We have inherent tendencies that can develop in the direction of either virtue or vice.
There is quite a lot of work being done in this area between mind and morality. One good title on the subject is simply, "The Moral Mind."
Each person is morally responsible, but if we let a vice grow, it eventually takes over, in the form of some kind of addiction. I suspect that is the process that someone like Jerry Sandusky experienced.
(I can get references on both the documentary and the book but don't have them here at my fingertips)
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
I checked out Accidental Courtesy.
Perhaps what we struggle with here is the difference between sin and vice. A sin can be forgiven, and the memory of it removed from our consciousness, as either an individual or as a people.
A vice, however, is not eliminated by forgiveness. A vice, like lust, anger, pride, or I think, racism, must be eliminated over a long struggle that changes attitudes and feelings, be they individual or corporate. I don't think our church, or many others, has dealt with this as well as we have with individual acts of sinfulness.
But Jesus famously did, when he commented on the 10 Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount. There he clearly showed that failing to perform sinful acts is not enough. It does not address the root attitudes/vices. Our thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and perspectives need to be converted as well.
So the question is not that of forgiveness only. Forgiving an act of violence, for instance, leaves the perpetrator and the victim off the hook regarding the underlying anger or resentment that may lie below the act. I wish we had been more well trained in the conversion of vices into virtues, not just in the forgiveness of particular sins.
And now I have a reading recommendation for any who wish to pursue this. Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World.
Posted in: How Should the Church Respond to Trump’s Travel Ban?
Please see my blog on this subject in the Back to God Ministries' "Think Christian." Commentary. I stand with you on this subject, but most of the readers of that blog have responded negatively.
Posted in: Our Reformed Engagement in Ethical Business Practices
There is a great deal of academic work in this field, and most MBA programs have a course in Business Ethics. But knowing and doing have long been separate items. I too published a book in Christian Ethics (The Moral Disciple, Eerdmans) and one related to global poverty (Less than $2.00 a Day, Eerdmans). The problem is not a lack of reflection on the topic, but a lack of action. It could perhaps be promoted within the church in classes, sermons, and activities. The big foe, however, is economic liberalism, which holds that if a transaction is legal, it is OK, as long as it follows the rules. That certainly needs to be challenged. Let's keep working at it.
Posted in: Mental Illness or Moral Illness?
Hi Mark,
Interesting reflections on Morality.
As is true in all human action, there is a mix of nature and nurture involved. I recently watched a series on the Science channel in which a neurologist examined the brain patterns of psycyopaths. He found that they did have a unique set of physical characteristics that occured mentally. He then had his own brain scanned, and found he exhibited the same characteristics. When he asked his friends if they thought he was like a psychopath, they said yes, "you're controlling, arrogant, can't be corrected, etc." The scientist credited his parents with raising him in such a way that the tendencies of his genetic/neurological problem did not arise to the level of action. I think it is much the same way with all of us. We have inherent tendencies that can develop in the direction of either virtue or vice.
There is quite a lot of work being done in this area between mind and morality. One good title on the subject is simply, "The Moral Mind."
Each person is morally responsible, but if we let a vice grow, it eventually takes over, in the form of some kind of addiction. I suspect that is the process that someone like Jerry Sandusky experienced.
(I can get references on both the documentary and the book but don't have them here at my fingertips)
Posted in: Mental Illness or Moral Illness?
Yes, Hauser is the author. There is a growing list of books on this.