Go and Do Likewise
Persuasion toward ethical behavior has been a typical hallmark of the preaching of all world religion; Christianity is no exception. The technical term employed to identify this kind of preaching is “paranetic,” derived from the Greek noun paranesis, meaning an exhortation toward ethical behavior. Ancient Jewish prophetic preaching featured admonitions toward ethical behavior and was therefore paranetic. The parables and the other teachings of Jesus often included the command, implicitly or explicitly, to “go and do likewise” or to “go and sin no more” were therefore paranetic. The Pauline epistles overflow with encouragement toward specific ways of behaving. Whether one consults early medieval monastic preaching or the Protestant social gospel movement of the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries or anything in-between preachers have rehearsed Christ’s challenge: “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mk 8:34). For generations, preachers have been calling their listening congregations to greater selflessness in His name.
Today we encounter in many quarters exceptions to this traditional call to selfless, ethical behavior. In our present eclectic age we have a host of inclusive sensitivities related to gender, multi-culturality, linguistic patterns, ecumenism, society’s unjust distribution of wealth, care of creation, inter-faith dialogue, post-Imperialism and the various liberation critiques. These sensitivities all serve to galvanize a bewilderingly wide host of agents eager to ease the burdens of the poor, gain a hearing for voices seldom hard in the past, and draw attention to unjust and unkind structures. These critical developed sensitivities can also leave us, however, with a profound awareness of how much we do not know about very many issues. One’s hermeneutics, that is, the manner in which one recognizes the authority behind various teaching voices, can also dramatically compromise one’s confidence to speak out. This is a distinct reaction to our exposure to so many different voices each claiming legitimacy, urgency, and a de facto superiority to differing views.
For example, whereas the Roman Catholic Church holds strong and clearly defined official teachings on many of the critical ethical issues of the day, some other churches do not, leaving their preachers vulnerable if they attempt to defend a principle not clearly acknowledged by the denomination they represent. With so many difficult, complex, and nuanced issues all claiming legitimacy and superiority, the preacher’s ability to comment confidently on many of today’s ethical issues can become so compromised that the minister of the Gospel is reduced to silence. While reducing the number of sermons filled with oversimplifications, close-mindedness, errors, stereotypes, cultural biases, and various other kinds of inaccuracies (unwitting or unintentional as they may be) is a good thing, it would be tragic if those called forth to proclaim the Gospel are silenced through confusion over shifting norms, ethics, and other behavioral standards within and without the church.
A silencing of the heralds of the Gospel, of course, must be averted, for, “…all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then are they to call on him if they have not come to believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard of him? And how will they hear of him unless there is a preacher for them?” (Mk 10:13-14). Perhaps the following suggestions can safeguard the preacher’s ability to preach confidently about today’s ethical issues.
An adjustment in vocabulary might help. I suggest a consistent replacement of the word ethics with the word morals in the faith context. Although the most cursory of explorations with a search engine will reveal variance of thought on the issue, many agree that ethics is the code of conduct one follows based on the norms of the society, whereas morals constitutes the code of conduct one follows based on religious convictions. In many ways, as it unfolds, the two turn out to be the same for most people, but the distinction is important. According to this usage, when civil rights activists of the 1960s demonstrated for racial equality by occupying bus seats not assigned to their respective race, they were breaking the law, and hence, acting unethically according to local norms. At the same time, however, they were obeying the higher, moral norms consistent with their Christian faith. Christians have a particular moral code that is documented in sacred scripture and that sometimes is at variance with contemporary ethics. This distinction in language is especially useful in providing precise vocabulary to discuss situations involving civil disobedience, organized opposition to unjust structures, and the like. To be Christian is to belong to a community with a demanding code of conduct. The consistent use of the word “morals” to describe that code for the Christian, as distinct from the “ethics” governing bottom-line, minimal correspondence to civil law and norms for courtesy, reinforces the responsibility the Christian assumes for care of neighbor and the resources of the earth. This linguistic distinction helps us name and delineate this reality with precision.
A further strategy to enable today’s preacher to preach about morals and ethics can be found in earlier church examination of the moral life. Today, many people think of the theological study of morals (sometimes called Moral Theology or Christian Ethics) as a separate discipline from study concerning growth in holiness (often called Christian Spirituality). In the thought of earlier doctors of the church like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the two were not distinct areas of thought, but rather, were the two poles of one united conversation. Moral Theology has often focused on how one avoids sin while Christian Spirituality often focused on how one grows in friendship with God. However, for Augustine, Aquinas, and others, one’s growth in friendship with God (holiness) occurs while one averts sin. The realization that in virtue formation, the two areas are not separate disciplines, but united, provides a key to confident moral preaching in the midst of what could be a chaotic and even a hostile environment.
For example, if one’s denomination has not taken an official position on one of the burning questions of the day, this does not release the minister of the Gospel from naming the troublesome issue and urging congregants toward greater moral behavior in its regard. What it does do, however, is to reframe the manner in which the preacher approaches the issue. Perhaps it is not going to be helpful or even possible to label something as sin in certain churches. Nonetheless, it is still possible to call one’s flock toward a more magnanimous and fulsome correspondence to God’s invitation to holiness. Perhaps one does not have a denominational mandate to condemn the death penalty, or war, to cite two hotly-debated contemporary issues. After all, good people have expressed varying opinions on both sides of these issues for generations. What is possible, however, is to preach for life, for reconciliation, for peace, for harmony, for humility — all of which are virtues of those who profess a faith in Jesus. Preaching that provides formation for the gradual process of growth in virtue is simultaneously preaching that works against the survival of sin. Of course, if one has been given the authority to name a particular matter as sin, then it must be named fearlessly and the faithful must be warned against it. But if this is impossible, one can still call one’s flock to greater holiness by urging movement toward the virtue being compromised by the troublesome dynamics.
When ethical issues are conveyed within the language of morality and become phenomena to be encountered in the course of virtue formation, the preacher can approach the contentious issues of the day with far greater confidence.
