In truth, of course, alleged revelation never has any effect or ethical guidance without human reason, since it is human reason that decides to accept something as “revelation” or even as relevant, even if it is done by a group rather than individual. Moreover, human reason within any particular given culture may be very selective about which ethical guidelines within even its “sacred” scripture or tradition are to be followed (or at least believed) and which can be ignored.
John Bennett, in his book on morality, in discussing the responses to Nixon and the Watergate, pointed out that many Christian evangelicals were more upset to find out from the tapes that Nixon used unacceptable language than they were about the overall illegality of the Watergate break-in and the obstruction of justice that followed.21 That same response has recently occurred when it was reported that conservative Christian leaders were upset about the present President’s vulgar language. That was more offensive to them than the inhumane immigration policies and continuous lying and other alleged abuses of power.
Once upon a time in Christian history, “usury” was thought to be a terrible sin, especially if as high as 6 percent interest. But modern banks and lenders today charge as much as the “market will bear” on credit card debt, which can be well above 20 percent if the client gets even slightly behind in payments. The banks can make crippling charges, apparently with a totally clear moral consciousness. So does reason qualify the “revelation,” or culture dictate how seriously or casually one takes the heteronomous idea of the religious Absolute?
One could probably get a pretty good idea of the way culture and religion interact if one were able to measure two different groups: (1) the churches that are sometimes called “megachurches,” which are growing or number in the thousands and are often built around a single leader or at least have no national organization, but consist of a fairly homogeneous group of people; and (2) the churches, many of which because of their national scope incorporate a greater diversity of people, and consequently seem to have had troubles or even split over ethical issues. If the vital sense of unity is a homogeneity on a particular issue, the group may avoid discussing other issues that are sensed as being divisive. The important or even Absolute stance on an issue in one church may be the exact opposite in another, and it appears this is especially true on issues that pertain to sexuality more than any other cultural issue. If either group sees a position in its tradition or Bible as Absolute, it may avoid raising any possibility of opposing interpretations or enabling parishioners of becoming aware that the Bible itself as well as the history of the Christian church is not really that fixed or consistent. Even the question of seeing the teachings of Paul and of Jesus as corresponding on ethical issues is plagued with difficulties, especially since the teachings of Jesus are simply reports of specific occasions that evoked some statements of his, whereas Paul took time in constructing letters by a scribe, which were not simply “live” as we would call it today. Whether either one thought he was being comprehensive in giving ethical guidance, or that his instructions should be normative for all ages to come is a real question that has to be asked.22 So even diligent adherents who insist on a complete and literal following of the scriptures still are very selective in what parts of the Bible they follow. Similar selectivity of scriptures occurs in most religions.
Another example of perceiving how much one’s particular cultural position dictates ethics is to observe that prior to the U.S. Civil War, Christianity was alleged (by different Christian religious “authorities”) to support both sides, both for and against human slavery! Could any religious ethic actually be credible if it were so ambiguous or opaque or so easy to twist into its opposite? Obviously, the primary factor behind the two positions was created more by the precise cultural position, the geopolitical and economic grounding of the specific citizens, the state and its relation to the slave trade, and other factors than by any Absolute ethical principle derived from the Christian religion.
Inasmuch as the ethics of an institutionalized religion are contingent, defined by an ancient mentality, and continually passed on, whether adapted to new cultures or not, we need to take a step back into our present and examine actual life in front of us, comparing, if possible, our presuppositions with those held by the authors behind the “sacred” traditions and their entire histories of interpretation. Certainly the absolutized metaphysics still seem to control, as old as they are. For example, many Christian theologians and scholars have understood the insufficiency of using anthropomorphic language to describe one’s Absolute, “ultimate concern,” or object of worship, just as influential Buddhist scholar, Masao Abe, has kindly objected even to Christianity’s persistent “reification” and “substantialization” in its notion of God.23 Unfortunately, however, that point has been largely missed when many theologians explained the basic doctrines or beliefs of the religion, at which occasion they often have continued to speak of this “God” anthropomorphically (even after they say it is only the “depth” or “abyss” beyond the polarity of being/nonbeing)—as if it were a supranatural infinite person after all—with all the human traits of thinking, planning, knowing, willing, loving, forgiving, working out huge purposes for every element of the cosmos and history, and so forth, in supranatural personal capacities—which contradicts the idea of its incommensurable attribution or ultimacy or infinity, its definition as not “a being.” Is it any wonder that some influential medical doctors are unaware of the self-contradictions of much modern theology—so still posit a supranatural being such as God of “love” or “design” “outside time and space” in this post-Copernican, post-Darwinian, post-Hubbell world?
Even if the Absolute were recognizable to frail, finite humans, there remain two questions: (1) in what form would that recognition occur, and (2) how would humans be able to speak of it? In very ancient times, religious people divined “signs,” sought out “oracles” at Delphi or other locations, intentionally went to “incubate” or sleep at an alleged holy site to try to get some vision, rolled sacred bones, and utilized a multitude of other forms to try to discover the “will” of their anthropomorphized deity. Not every claim was acceptable, and once religious groups formed around a particular alleged deity, they quite often legislated that anyone practicing other methods of contacting the divine should be put to death. So the prophets who dared to quote their deity with a “Thus says Yahweh” or the equivalent, were already one step more definitive than the priests who had to offer up sacrifices and look for some “sign.” But gradually, in most religions, the preferred deity actually “spoke.” How did people understand? Is it natural that the deity spoke only in their single language, so the revelation was limited to that specific culture?
In many religions, one sacrificed one’s best animals, if not one’s best children, to get the attention and favor of the deity, as obedience to the “revealed will” of this god, that is, to make contact with that which was later considered Absolute. But how did the people know what these gods required?24 Finally, each religion eventually had its oral and written traditions, not mere stories, but often a deep philosophizing that made it sound like a man was speculating, such as in the Rig Veda, but sacrality protected these possessions of the priests, forbidding the common person even to view sacred scriptures.
So how does a finite, contingent, human being in process not only recognize, but also speak with, about, or relate to this Absolute? With mythology? With historical claims? With symbols? With mere emotions? With poetry? With silence? “Theology” implies that one knows enough to speak about the “logos” of “theos.”25 How? In what form, what language? Or is silence the only response? So what are people seeking in “religion”?
Religion’s Search for “More” Life: Character and Reward
Whether people are religious or completely nonreligious, most want “more life” or at least a better life than they presently experience. The expression “MORE life” was a quotation the famous American philosopher, William