Tags
1987, 2011, Brian Malley, Constantine, divine command theory, ethical relativism, Ethics, Massey Presbyterian Church, Matthew Flannagan, Michael Jones, rugby, Rugby World Cup, Sabbath, Sunday, Theodosius, West Auckland
Michael Jones and Michael Jones
At the very first Rugby World Cup tournament, in 1987, the first person to score a try was New Zealander, Michael Jones. In the 1980s and 1990s, the boy from West Auckland was not only famous for his canny abilities at flanker, but for his refusal to play rugby on Sundays. From the days of the early Christians, Sunday was commemorated as the day on which they believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead. By the fourth century, the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, placed restrictions on the activities able to be carried out on Sundays. These restrictions were extended later that century, under the Emperor Theodosius, making it illegal to conduct business, attend sports, or attend the theatre on every seventh day. In essence, Christians applied the Jewish laws concerning rest on the Sabbath to the new “Christian Sabbath”. Generations of Christians, including All Black Michael Jones, believed that rest on “The Lord’s Day” was the proper ethical stance for Christians to take.
Roll on 2011 and there is another Rugby World Cup. But things have changed in West Auckland churches. Within a couple of decades or so, the Christian attitude to Sunday which reigned in Christian parts of the world for a millennium and half has dramatically changed. If you attend Massey Presbyterian Church, for example, once the evening sermon by Matthew Flannagan is complete, you can remain in your pew and then watch the rugby match between New Zealand and Argentina.
As with all societies, cultures, and subcultures, the churches are continually changing and adapting their moral stances. They might not think that they do, and some might even claim to follow “objective divine commands”. Yet, on examination, churches are just as subject to the winds of moral change as any. No doubt Christians had good reasons in 1987 to stand up for not playing rugby on Sundays and equally good reasons in 2011 for showing rugby in church on Sundays. Ethical reasoning is often like that. There is no “fundamental” or “objective” reason for any set of ethics which a community adopts. Any set of ethics is completely subjective, merely the result of a community’s adoption of certain rules of behaviour. But once ethics are adopted, humans do tend to produce no end of rationalisations for doing what they currently do.
Much the same is the case for Christian communities. One difference, of course, is that Christian communities claim that they take ethical stances – e.g. on sex, war, global warming, stem-cell research, single mothers, etc – based on divine authority. However, “divine authority” is frequently a placeholder for whatever is the latest ethical trend. As Brian Malley says:
In my lifetime I have seen, among evangelical Christians, a new emphasis on environmental awareness, on physical fitness, on community formation, and changes in gender ideology. All of these changes reflected trends in the larger cultural environment, but all were incorporated into evangelical Christians’ authoritative discourse by being expounded from the Bible, as what the Bible had always said.
– Brian Malley, “Understanding the Bible’s Influence,” pages 194-204 in James S. Bielo, ed., The Social Life of Scriptures: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Biblicism (Rutgers, 2009), 202-203.
And what is the topic of the sermon at Massey Presbyterian Church, before they take down the sermon powerpoints and show the rugby game? The sermon is railing against … “ethical relativism“.
They couldn’t possibly be more ironic if they had tried!
The Dunedin School 
I can’t believe they can’t see the irony. The contradiction, the oxy moronic comedy – it’s pure satire. Will there be beer? You can’t watch religion without a six pack.
I am laughing my head off at the observation that some believe one can be a relativist and state someone or something is wrong whilst waahing on about irony.
See below. (Further, the moral relativist’s explanation of the statement “this is wrong” is, by definition, that it is a relative, not an objective, statement.)
You’re in favour of ethical relativism right Deane? But you think this is wrong? How does that work?
Madeleine – if you reread the article, you will see that nowhere am I saying “this is wrong”, and the rightness or wrongness of showing rugby in church is actually quite beside the point. Rather, the article provides one example of how Christian morality itself, while claiming to believe in moral absolutes, in fact provides a clear example of moral relativism. I trust you understand the difference.
Interesting perspective. Yet, if we are to get nit-picky watching rugby and playing on a Sunday are easily seen as two different things. I’m pretty sure Michael Jones was watching the games that, for his own religious convictions, he did not play in. Can’t see how these actually relate?
Additionally, the grounds for contrasting watching a sport and participating in a sport are ludicrous. The Sabbath requires a day to rest from our usual work. How could watching rugby be construed as work, in fact, it’s quite the opposite…..
Mark 2:27: “Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
If you presuppose the truth of moral relativism, won’t you just look at any example of moral change and call it an example of moral relativism?
So presupposing moral absolutism will lead one to the conclusion that the Christian community has mere changed in it’s knowledge and understanding of existing moral absolutes.
So your article doesn’t really show anything.
merely*
I really can’t believe it. ROFHysterically!
Thanks for writing that article. It reveals to me a misunderstanding, which seems to be quite prevalent at the moment. That is the misunderstanding between what grounds a moral standard, and how we apply that moral standard (or how we ‘understand’ or know that moral standard.
There is no moral relativism going on here. There is no contradiction or irony, and I’m very surprised that you would say that, since it’s a logical fallacy. You’re equivocating between moral ontology and moral epistemology, aren’t you! Epistemology asks how do we know the moral values and duties that we have, ontology asks what is the foundation in reality for moral values and duties we have. You’re confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms.
Look, if, as Matthew Flannagan says, moral standards are grounded/defined by the character and nature of God, and he expresses them to us as moral commands or standards, and we interpret and apply those commands, then doesn’t it make sense that over time and across different cultures, the understanding will vary? Doesn’t it also make sense that over time, our understanding will grow, and we will better understand what the moral nature of God through those commands? For example, 100 years ago racism was rife through much of the church, just as it was in our culture. But over time, through study and all sorts of methods, we learn that actually, racism is actually contrary to God’s nature as expressed in his will and commands to us. Well that change in understanding does not make the foundation relative or subjective, just that our understanding has changed or increased.
So our understanding changes, sure, everyone knows that. But that does nothing, absolutely nothing, to undermine the objectiveness of God’s ethical nature (in a divine command ethics philosophy). So there is no contradiction there.
So don’t confuse the terms. God’s moral nature is objective from our perspective. Our comprehension and understanding, however, is limited, changing, and growing all the time. But that doesn’t make a Christians (or theists) ethical understanding subjective either, far from it. Just like how scientific study can reveal objective truths about nature, so can study of God’s moral nature and commands reveal objective truths about morality. Even though our understanding of nature has changed over the years, it’s never the less revealing objective truths, and the same goes for our understanding of morality in that it can change over the years, but it’s never the less revealing objective truths about morality (or at least this is what Matthew Flannagan would argue, I suspect).
I’m surprised that you don’t seem to understand this yet, but hopefully your understanding will increase and a greater comprehension of what is objectively true will be grasped by you.
In summary, there is no irony here, there is no moral relativism here, the so called “Divine Command Ethics” is not contradicting itself here. What we do have is an article equivocating between moral epistemology and moral ontology, a common but silly mistake to make.
Hope this clears up the apparent confusion you have about watching the footy on a Sunday. Our epistemological understanding and application may change or vary, but that does nothing to undermine the objective truthfulness of the ontological foundation. That is true, for example, of the scientific study of nature, and also with the theological study of morality.
Andy if your “ontology” is all messed up, its probably a good sign you “epistomology” is too. In other words – if you keep saying a bunch of stuff that don’t make sense, chances are your arguments don’t make much sense either. Savvy?
What is it they say about cuttlefish? Clouds or somefink?
Plus (as has already been noted), refusing to play rugby 20 years ago, and allowing to watch rugby today is NOT an example of moral relativism. How is watching and playing the same thing? duh! hahaha, gold!
Duh, moral relativism asserts no objective reference for determining whether sport-on-Sundays (or anything else) is moral. A community that disagrees about the application here is not slipping into relativism PRECISELY because they disagree.
Ironically, the creators of satire still manage to lose the plot. And that ‘gold’en gem was truly hysterical – it merely reinforces the (obviously un)obvious.
Yes – I guess it can be a little too much to handle, for some, to realise that one’s religious system of ethics conforms exactly with what a moral relativist theory expects. It’s interesting, too, how some of them fall back on a convoluted philosophical claim about divine command theory, which is essentially: ‘but it could be logically true, and no evidence disproves it’. Well, yes – that is true of anything argued from logic. But the far-fetched assumptions about a Divine Commander and what he allegedly commanded don’t make it particularly sound.
Even that clearly didn’t help, obviously. I think it’s something to do with a literal view of language and logic, a problem with lateral thinking and peanut butter and jam sandwiches, not to mention cuttlefish too.
Okay, 2 things.
1. The article is illogical.
The author seems to use this logic:
1. in 1984, it was immoral to do activity A.
2. in 2011, it is morally permissible to do activity B.
3. therefore this is an example of moral relativism because there is a change of moral stance.
This is a non-sequitur, the logic does not follow, ie it is invalid and illogical.
The only way this can be logical is if you add a premise arguing that A and B are the same entity. In this article’s case, A is playing football on Sunday, and B is watching football on Sunday, so the only way to make a case is to say that playing and watching football is the same thing, and I put it to you that this is an indefensible position.
Lets try another example for illustration purposes then:
“in 1984 it was immoral for Christians to consume marijuana (Something Steph (jokingly) seems to be doing now, with all her histerical laughter lol). But in 2011 these same Christians are now eating apples. It’s so hysterical that they change their moral stance like that. What a bunch of hypocrites. I’m laughing hysterically because they don’t see how ironic it is etc etc etc. ”
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Just how is this logical?
2. Divine Command Ethics or whatever
I mentioned this because the author of the article mentions it, and because I know Matthew Flannagan mentions it a lot on his website. But it’s not necessary for my argument, so I’m happy to take it or leave it.
The point I’m making is that there is a difference between moral ontology (eg what is morality) and moral epistemology (How do we know what is moral). I’m open (and I think Matthew Flannagan might be too) to a number of different moral epistemologies. But this is not the same thing as being a moral relativist. Yes, My moral understanding may change, but that doesn’t make morality relativistic to me. Moral relativism says that there is no true moral ontology, because it’s all just relative to the individual or to society or to whatever. I don’t hold that view, I say there is a true moral ontology, that there are moral facts, but my understanding of what those moral facts are may change or grow as I better discover it.
Thus, even if you used an example that was logical (eg in 2011 it’s now morally permissible to actually play football on sunday) then this is totally coherent with that perspective, and does not have to mean I’m a moral relativist. It might simply mean that I was once mistaken to think playing sport on a Sunday was unethical, and I have a better understanding now.
The article seems to be suggesting that Christians are actually moral relativists, or at least are somewhat relativistic in their ethical stances. There might be a case to make on this. It might be possible, but this particular article does not seem to make this case. It asserts it, but the example used to support this assertion is (as shown above) absurd.
I believe it is absolutely wrong to degrade the sanctity of God’s house by watching manmade idols in it. Shame Shame and Shame.
LOL, are you being funny, or serious? I can’t tell. I hope you’re being satirical because
1. Buildings are not a house for God – if this is what you think, then your theology is pretty screwed up and I suggest checking out exactly where God does “live”. He certainly doesn’t need any buildings, and he doesn’t dwell in any buildings, and it’s quite absurd to call a building “God’s house.”
2. Where do you get the idea that watching sport is actually watching idols? WTF? Where did THAT come from? Firstly, men are not ‘man-made’ as you suggest, and secondly, watching these guys play a game is not idolizing them any more than watching your child play sport at school is idolizing your child. You still *could* idolize your child, or anything else too, but it’s really got nothing to do with whether you are watching them play or not. Whether you watch them or not is irrelevant because it’s possible (and nearly universally common) to watch someone play a game and NOT idolize them.
This is weird!
It would appear I am being both.
Obviously rugby players are not man made, at least nomore than anyone else.
If you do not think they are idolised, I must assume you do not live in New Zealand.
As for God’s house? Well traditionally churches are places set aside specificaly for the purpose of worshipping God. This seems pretty uncontroversial.
Your comments make me cringe, thats all. Why call a church building the house of God? Not only is that not true, its just an embarrassing thing to say.
I hate to think of you cringing and being all embarrassed over there due to your inability to detect humour. My initial post was a mockery of the sort of thing a fundamentalist christian might say. Often in (older) films you will see a priest say “this is the house of God” when someone is acting in what he deems an inapropriate manner. It is almost a cliche. I thought that this colloqual term for “church” was well enough known that someone would not come along and take it literally and pick it apart. I used the term “house of God” because (i) it was suitably old fashioned and conservative enough to make my comment funnier. (ii) It is a well enough known cipher for church that most people are aware of. …if you are unaware of what a phrase means in future a dictionary/theasaurus ,might help. It would stop you unnessesarilly spending a night cringing … Is there any way to add a “laugh track” to comments on this blog for the benifit of our American friends? :)
Why are you so bothered? It’s one of the oldest Judaeo-Christian traditions, it’s metaphorical anyway, it’s older than ekklesia which means community not a building, and very conservative Christians still use it. Don’t worry….
Haha. Okay M, or Max. I wasn’t sure whether you were joking or not. I hoped you were, but as you pointed out, there are actually many evangelical Christians who do speak this way and *that* makes me cringe. I feel like I’m always needing to educate fellow Christians because often they just say and do stupid things; as you well know, no doubt :-)
As a theist myself, I am often embarrassed by my fellow Christians, and the way you were speaking there was exactly like how some of them would speak, in other words, you were too good at mimicking some Christians :-) So good I thought perhaps you were serious. Hilarious.
Also, actually, I’m from Australia, so I do kinda get your local colloquial speak (eg idolizing footy players – Go the Warriors!) Actually, speaking of Warriors, my church also watched the rugby league game with the Warriors before church started the other week. Pity the warriors lost though.
and yet, ironically, they’re closer to earlier tradition.