Mission is the Source of Morality

The problem of distinguishing between critical moral teaching and mere legalism is a problem both older and broader than Christianity. When Jesus takes it up in his teaching and actions he actually joins a tradition of thought well-established in not only rabbinic Judaism, but that of religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism as well. 

What makes Jesus’ teaching distinctive is his criteria for distinguishing between morality and legalism: He asks what serves or does not serve his mission of proclaiming God’s Reign. He doesn’t do away with Jewish law, he simply asks on a case by case basis whether the application of the law is moral in that it advances the goal of making God’s Reign manifest. So, for example, he doesn’t do away with the teaching that one should “honor the sabbath and keep it holy” as a way of manifesting God’s Reign. Instead he asks whether the forbidding of healing on the sabbath serves the purpose for which the sabbath was intended: the flourishing of humankind. 

Properly speaking the distinction Christians should make in Jewish law isn’t between “moral” law and “ritual law” but between laws whose keeping furthers the mission of Christ and those that do not. In some contexts (perhaps Messianic Judaism?) keeping traditional ritual laws may be an essential witness to God’s Reign.

More broadly we could say that in the teaching of Jesus legalism is the application of the law that is contrary to the purpose of the law as a witness to the Reign of God. In this Jesus actually engages in a long-standing rabbinical debate and returns the law to its original purpose as the basis for a communal life that is a “light to the nations.”

With this in mind we can see how Paul’s understanding of the law expands on that articulated by Jesus. Paul understands humans as under the tutelage of the law; which teaches humans to be aware of their dependence on God’s righteousness in Christ for salvation. When it fails to serve this purpose and become and end in itself it is worth than useless. Thus for Paul, as for Jesus, morality is based on that which serves the mission of declaring Jesus as the Lord of the Reign of God. Paul’s ethic is always shaped by the demands of witness to Christ, not mere obedience to revealed law.

Understanding that Christian morality isn’t based on revealed legal codes, but what is necessitated by the mission given Jesus by his apostles, don’t solve every dispute over morality. We do gain some clarity over where appropriate disputes lie, and where having a dispute is itself immoral.

Since the morality of the church derives from the mission of preaching that God’s Reign is near, appropriate moral disputes will be those which concern effective witness to God’s Reign. If God’s Reign is understood to be manifest in unchanging moral laws and unchanging social structures then this will lead to one kind of witness. If God’s Reign is understood to be a constant evolution of morals and social structures toward deeper, wider, and more comprehensive visions of righteousness a rather different witness may be required.

Put in contemporary United Methodist terms this means that the appropriate realm for disputation over human sexuality is whether defining marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman is essential to proclaiming that God’s Reign is near. I would argue that it is not, because according to scripture marriage isn’t a permanent feature of God’s Reign, while fidelity in human partnerships is. But I can imagine an argument that in this place and time marriage between a man and a woman is so critical to witnessing to God’s order, and thus to God’s Reign, that it cannot be set aside. 

What is not consistent with Jesus’ moral teaching are accusations of antinomianism based the absolutizing of any legal structure whatsoever, whether scriptural or merely institutional. Christians are obliged to break the law when doing so witnesses to the nearness of God’s Reign, not least church law. And indeed they are required to enmesh themselves in just those legal structures that need to be destroyed rather than simply withdrawing from them. Jesus was not an Essene, and neither did his disciples withdraw from the world of Jewish law or Roman law. The fact that church membership is voluntary is morally meaningless. Christians are obliged to witness against injustice where they find it, not simply hide from it. 

Similarly it is not consistent with Jesus’ teaching to impugn the intentions of those who share a commitment to Christian witness over a disagreement about the nature of God’s Reign. The fundamental Christian moral intention is to witness that God’s Reign has come near in Christ, the Ruler of that Reign. If that is present then mistakes, even egregious mistakes, are possible even as the love of Christ is present. This I take to be the central concept of Wesley’s teaching, particularly in his sermon “Catholic Spirit.” The love of which Wesley speaks is not love for God and neighbor, but shared love for Christ and Christ’s mission. 

And in both cases above the fundamental questions arises: How do we behave morally when we disagree with one another on our shared commitment to the mission of Christ? 

Its a big question, but I’ll offer my personal perspective. 

First, the political actions taken on all sides of current UM dispute at past General Conferences weaken the witness of the Church to Christ’s Reign and are therefore immoral. This is the case even if those who propagate them believe that deploying them serves the witness of the church. Intention isn't the only determinate of morality.

Everything from free breakfast briefings, cell phone giveaways, the entrenched lobbying of the boards and agencies and the endless disruptions and demonstrations reflect the the fact that the General Conference, and indeed the entire United Methodist Church is infected with an obsession with coercive power that is antithetical to the mission of the church it claims to represent. The particular political strategies deployed by different groups all carry the demonic virus of dependency on coercive power; a virus that grows stronger and more subtle with every increase in size and complexity of an institution. The United Methodist Church reached the pinnacle of its social influence and size in 1968 in Dallas, and simultaneously reached its fullest potential for corruption precisely because of its infatuation with social influence. 

These immoral politics that have emerged in our fights at General Conference will not be cured by division. Each side carries within it the viral infatuation with coercive power that is endemic in American Christianity. From left to right United Methodism doesn’t need revival or reform. We need rebirth. 

Nor will these immoral politics end by allowing a “graceful exit” for one or more of the disputants, because the possession of property has no moral value in advancing the mission of Christ. This he makes utterly clear to his disciples. In the end our houses of worship, our office buildings, schools and hospitals are built of straw on sand, and what the sea does not claim will be burned in the fire. Even if we exorcise the demonic love of power that inhabits them our love of property will only invite seven more in. 

The only moral intention that will rescue division from ignominy is a decision to continue to cooperate in all those forms of witness where there is no dispute that they manifest the nearness of God’s Reign in Christ. That alone might save at least some of our institutions from worthlessness and re-ignite our witness that God’s Reign not only comes near, but has come near to us in Jesus Christ.