Treating Ethics as a Failure that Succeeds
July 07, 2012
A few days ago I wrote a post entitled “Stop Teaching the Ethics of Jesus” that received a lot of attention. Some people have asked for clarifications and, as luck would have it, Jay Bakker asked me to come to Revolution so that he could interview me about it. So here is a longer reflection on the post. While this is a prolonged interview that takes up various themes the main point that I am making is that ethical systems are necessary failures i.e. failures that we need in order to receive what they promise but can’t give us.
25 Responses to Treating Ethics as a Failure that Succeeds
Leave a Reply
Speaking
October 20Pints and Parables, Detroit, MI
October 22
Building on Fire, Detroit, MI
October 26
The Largo with Rob Bell, Los Angeles, CA
November 12
Building on Fire, Los Angeles, CA
April 24-27
Wake 2017, Belfast, UK
April 30 - May 2
Thrive Conference, Granite Bay, CA
View all upcoming events
Latest Book
Jay and you speak on the issue of social justice in the interview, is not that in a way to teach the ethics of Jesus?
“Ethics” is a precise term that refers to the systematic reflection on and teaching about ideals relating to moral and immoral behavior. The point is that in teaching ethics one ends up with its opposite. As soon as you attempt to teach ethics you enter into an impossible bind. Teaching ethics is a failure that one must turn into a success (precisely because of the failure). I tried to explain this point in the above interview, however I recommend “Against Ethics” by John Caputo if you wish to delve deeper. Or if you are interested in this dialectic type of thinking Zizek’s new book “Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism” has a fantastic discussion of it in chapter 4.
Pete, very much enjoyed the clarification. Give people time to absorb this because it is a wreaking ball into many people’s frameworks. Just listened to a “ted talk” by a gal named Elyn Saks who has schizophrenia. Her comments about the use of restraints to “keep her safe” during her hospitalization I thought echoed some of what you are pointing towards. Here’s a link if you have time… http://www.ted.com/talks/elyn_saks_seeing_mental_illness.html
Thank you for the extended discussion, I’m looking forward to 5 hour drive I have this week so I can dig into it!
Here is the question that has been running in my head since the original post and in reading some of the comments. Once we say “we should live x and y” aren’t we establishing an ethic?
I’m not sure I completely agree with your desire for the Church (such as Church only being a temporary stage, though that may have just been figurative). To me there should not be separation between the Church and public community. As you said, we are all messed up so isn’t the Church just another venue for us to serve?
Pete…you briefly mentioned your view on sin as separation as opposed to moral failure (my words)….can you point me to more of your writing/speaking on this?
a question – in what way does your vision of the church / collective differ from an AA meeting? it seems that we are suppose to all get together, admit that we are messed up…and form there create an atmosphere of grace and acceptance where we are helped with our problems, or not.
it is unclear what resources we are to then draw on, apart from the implicit liberal humanism, to make anything better. you even say that anything that promises to make things better is an idol.
so, to draw on the parallel of the prodigal son, you leave us in the pig sty aware that things are desperately wrong and broken but with no way of getting back to the joy and celebration of the father’s household. instead we are left eating pigs’ food with some other poor unfortunates.
how depressing!!!
at least the AA have the twelve step process, you seem to offer nothing, beyond and the initial awareness there is a problem…
It is often hard for us to really listen to a different perspective and understand it from the inside. But I trust that if you are willing to do the work then you can see how what you are saying doesn’t quite get the point. I would also recommend reading some Levinas on ethics to get an idea of where I am coming from. Caputo’s Against Ethics is also great and very accessible. Thanks
my point is that you can’t simply dismiss any ethical system without dismissing the tradition, community and underlying theological/philosophical commitments from which that system arises (and seeing as though you were kind enough to give me a reading list, perhaps you could ‘do the work’ by reading aquinas, wittgenstein, mccabe and macintyre)
so my question stands (as it stands more generally of the work of caputo), following the deconstructive move, on what resources will you draw on to create a community of love grace etc. i assume that you follow caputo’s disavowal of ‘rouged’ theology, and the move into post-metaphysics, so what theological resources are you left with to draw on, which make the collective any different from an AA meeting?
(If the answer if none, then fine. I’m sure people will find such a group therapeutic, in the same way as going to weight watchers is. Just stop the charade that this has anything to do with the way of Jesus.)
I very much enjoy these types of conversations. Indeed I spend a lot of time in various settings doing this very thing. But I don’t enjoy the more impolite tone that such discussions seem to take place on line. Maybe it’s a cultural thing.
you are quite right. my apologies for my pointed post and unnecessarily sharp tone. (may this apology fail, that it might succeed!)
You make the entire “idea” of God the idol and then you schizophrenic-ally don’t know what to do with love. May be where I differ with you. I think God is both idol and love and the way in which one can stir ethics and not “teach” ethics is that love is there (and not philosophically but more in the divine mystery – although this does not deny the aspect of strange love and God/idol type God talk).
It is funny how this is still so radical 2000 years later. “They” ought to practice their grace, but leave me and mine alone about our favorite ethical issues.
My initial comment was too snarky. What I’m trying to say is that it really surprises me that Pete’s message of grace is getting this much resistance.
I’ve noticed that Christians recovering from *both* conservative and liberal religious backgrounds tend to carry some very raw ill will toward their prior background (Jay mentions his experience in the video). If people had instead experienced what Pete is talking about the end result could be very different.
So anyhow, I still find myself wondering about the apology bit, it doesn’t quite fit. Seems that to offer an apology usually fits into some sort of guilt of pressure or still in some way self serving and “get me off the hook please” whereas it seems that if one truly felt a heart change or having different eyes to see then an apology would simply be stating what one has already entered, whereas to offer an apology with the idea that one will then enter into some sort of actual change means it is still not seen or doesn’t even “exist” yet. Like when a husband blindly does the dishes as the apology simply to clear the air and has no real connection as to what the issues really are. So on that note I apologize for being too sharp I respect most of your teachings like a hollow shell, but I profoundly disagree with some of it, I feel you place a portion aside for the heart work but it remains powerless in that you deny God so much because of religion or idols or its need base that you don’t allow for the tension of god as the pain of idol- suffering and love…even though you hint at it.
Even though they don’t the meet the technical standards of an “ethical framework,” your ideas are, in fact, a suggested mode of behavior that you’re attempting to impose on others. What should I do with the guilt and repression that arise when you tell me I’m messing up by encouraging people to follow the ethics of Jesus?
Does the irony register? How do you address it?
Moreover, “encountering ‘the other’ and hearing ‘don’t murder me'” is itself an ethical framework, rooted in Jewish and Christian thought (as well as other sources, obviously). Should we throw out that framework, as well?
To quote a wise person I once heard, “I trust that if you are willing to do the work then you can see how what you are saying doesn’t quite get the point.” I would suggest reading some N.T. Wright on virtue (After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters).
And, as an aside, it’s unfair to call your ideas “Pauline” in origin when Paul’s remarks concerning “The Law” refer specifically to the Mosaic Law, not to ethical frameworks in general.
I believe that I addressed this issue in the interview (in relation to my use of Hegel to argue that ethics is needed as a failure that is rendered into a success through its failure). Which means that love gives what ethics promises yet is an obstacle to.
And of course this line of thought can operate with the logical structure of the teaching of an ethical system! How could it be otherwise? No theoretical content can escape being used as a weapon, even (perhaps especially) ones that talk about grace. My point is that any system used to impose norms will encourage the opposite (which is only an appearance of being opposite, as it is really a part), and must be allowed to fail through a confrontation with grace.
Also I tend to use the word ‘Paulinian’ though may have slipped up and used ‘pauline’ at some point. I do this to distance myself from the writings on Paul found in the church/theological establishment and to signal my connection with the readings of Paul found in Zizek, Agamben and Badiou.
Note to self. Don’t talk about grace To religious people. They seem to hate it!
Well now I have to go deal with my guilt and repression for being “religious” on top of all the other bad and naughty things I do. If only I could find a community that would create a space of grace in which I was invited to bring my religious, judgmental darkness to the surface. If only I could experience an atmosphere of love, grace and acceptance where I wasn’t told what to do…
In seriousness, though, I’m trying hard not to be cynical here, but I’m failing. You suggest that rigid ethical frameworks may be necessary for people who are sociopaths or have autism, and I think that if we’re really being honest with ourselves, really letting the “darkness” surface, we would realize that we’re all closer to that status than we realize. We all seek our own good at the expense of others. We all manipulate people for our own end. We all live lives that seek to shelter us from encountering the other. So don’t we all need ethics (even if they fail)?
Just curious if you’ve engaged with N.T. Wright’s recent work on virtue? Or maybe you, like your mythical king, are much too enlightened and tolerant to engage with divergent viewpoints…. (apologies. I just can’t seem to keep that inner cynic repressed)
Jon, I promise you that I spend most of my week reading and engaging with people who believe and think differently to me. To be honest that should be the norm for any thinker as it would be rare to critically read a book and not find some critical difference (unless involved in a mode of ideological or apologetic reading). This is the very thing a thinker hopes for as this provides the place to reconsider and expand horizons. This is what makes the academic enterprise so rich, at least for me.
Thankfully the people I generally engage with in person make that easy by being gracious and respectful. I cannot say the same for debates that happen here. I think it might be cultural to some extent as the kind of dialogue some (including you) engage in here is just, to be honest, very new to me. I am still trying to work out how to address it.
After all it is always easy for the other (yourself in this example) to say that there was only respect and admiration for me as an individual attempting to bring these discussions to a wider audience. And that it is purely my projection and over sensitivity to see in the critical comment any sense of anger. The other can always claim that I am using a non existent rudeness in order to avoid addressing a well intentioned request for clarification or a respectful critical comment (and in truth there is probably an over-sensitivity in me at this moment as this post has generated a lot of anger: some of the nastier comments I didn’t post up. So you might be being unfairly read through a certain fatigue I am feeling from all of that).
Well if you are annoyed about such posts and wish that I would disappear I can at least encourage you by saying that such comments (not the bit where you ask a reasonable question, I mean the other bits), do encourage me to go work in a university setting teaching philosophy.
In terms of NT Wright I have read him a little and heard him speak on occasion but while I find him thoughtful he is, like me, a populist (mostly bringing the New Perspective on Paul to a wider audience). Like him (I guess) I spend my time reading more dry and boring academic work and then attempt to bring it to a wider audience. This is not an attack on Wright at all, I guess he could debate with the best of the academy in his area of specialisation. Indeed I respect his desire to open these discourses to more people very deeply. It reflects my own desire.
But in terms of the New Perspective the short answer is that ultimately I, for reasons beyond the scope of a blog comment, am engaging with Paul in a different way (one that sometimes runs up against church readings in both their ‘old’ and multiple ‘new’ versions). A way that is more in line with the work of Badiou.
Hi Peter,
My attempt is not be rude (although I recognize how my comments could be read that way—and I apologize). I’m sure you’re experiencing quite a bit of pushback from folks who express their love and fidelity to the Suffering Servant by trying to crucify all those they deem “enemies.”
That’s not my intent. I believe you mean well, but ultimately are misguided.
To see ethics as a necessary failure is OK as far as it goes. I would agree with Paul that the Law (Mosaic Law, not all ethical frameworks) was a “necessary failure.”
However, I see in Jesus something different: the promise of transformation so that an “ethic” imposed externally (chiefly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount) will, over time, generate an internal transformation such that the “ethic” becomes a normal, natural mode of behavior.
Certainly the church has messed this up by using the external standard to generate guilt, fear, etc. But abusus non tolit usum. Just because people abuse the ethics of Jesus doesn’t mean they don’t have a right and proper use.
I would imagine that, when properly applied, the ethical framework of Jesus—which seeks the highest good of the other—will bring about the exact end you’re desiring, and do such much more effectively than the “live and let live” ethos some may read into your recent writings.
There’s no reason to expect that “people not being told what to do” will lead to a positive outcome. Instead, people need to be gently, softly encouraged to undertake the process of transformation, empowered by the Holy Spirit (a phrase conspicuously absent from this dialogue).
Along the way, there will be failures (just as your own ethical framework of “nonjudgment” will fail (and has failed in this very discourse)). But within Jesus’ ethical framework itself is the solution to those failures: grace, grace, and more grace.
Just one more thing, since Wright expresses the thought much more eloquently than I:
“How do we make moral decisions? Do we have to choose between a system of Rules (which we then just need to hammer out and agree on) and a system of Finding Out Who I Really Am (and being true to it)? Are there other ways not only of discovering how we should live but of actually living that way? … Jesus himself, backed up by the early Christian writers, speaks repeatedly about the development of a particular character. Character—the transforming, shaping, and marking of a life and its habits—will generate the sort of behavior that rules might have pointed toward but which a ‘rule-keeping’ mentality can never achieve. And it will produce the sort of life which will in fact be true to itself—though the “self” to which it will at last be true is the redeemed self, the transformed self, not the merely ‘discovered’ self of popular thought.”
My concern about your approach is that it seems to celebrate the “discovered” self. I haven’t been a pastor long, but I’ve spent enough time in pastoral ministry to recognize that the “discovered” self, the “non-transformed” self, can be ugly and dark beyond measure. Left to our own devices, our sense of “self” can be judgmental, hurtful, greedy, vindictive, violent. We can perpetually encounter the other and attempt to murder.
That’s why I have so little patience for “not telling people what to do.” If someone wants to murder the other, and after given time and space and grace and acceptance, still wants to murder the other, they need to be told not to.
Where I think you and I differ is in whether time and space and grace and acceptance alone will reduce that murderous impulse. My experience teaches me that it won’t, and because of that, we desperately need ethics.
Perhaps it is the idea of grace that is taught. Is he talking about grace given empowered from judgment as in counting the costs or love empowered from…”God”. I really do like what he is saying and most of what he teaches, but it is how the love aspect and it relating to grace and the surrending-irk it enables that I find as the difference. Probably where we will agree to disagree (although I think the difference is not judgment-cost-counting-grace but love, but we define love in action differently). The way I follow the lovely-Pete (whom I really do like and enjoy….but don’t fully agree with….”holding grace card”) is that he will not let go of the idea of the cold turkey pain and utter suffering card and he will ignore someone into the corner or off the cliff while having some wee-fun for the sake of the changing experience….and if it turns out okay – then great- if not, then….well we don’t know yet…but I really do not think it must be that way…and I don’t mean mind-tricks, I mean more of the mystery of grace precisely in the shell-format of his teachings but in not neglecting love in the sense that it is what causes writers to speak or write of it as “magic” and “mystery”…that love changes and allows for grace. Maybe I make no sense – but what I mean is that he seems to think that this change happens as grace plows us through judgment and we are stripped, then “boop” love appears. I just think he has more love in him than that. : )
Hi Pete! Thanks for this. A question somewhat unrelated to the main topic of this post: what do you mean when you say, as you mentioned briefly in this talk, that you are not a “religious” Christian? By “religion” to what do you refer?
As an anthropologist who studies religion in an ethnographic context, one of the most fascinating (and headache-inducing) aspects is the way peoples/scholars define and categorize what it means to be “religious” in various ways. I was wondering how you use the term, and how it informs the way you understand your identification with Christianity. It might help me understand your writings a little better.
For instance, the majority of Evangelicals would vehemently oppose any identification with the term “religious”. I think it’s safe to assume when you say you are not “religious”, you don’t mean anything remotely similar to them, lol.
Peter,
Forgive me for responding to your last article on this topic without knowing this interview was up. It’s cleared up quite a bit of confusion I had with your previous entry, though I’m still trying to understand.
A few points/questions here:
The issue seems to be related to an individual’s ability to appropriate a given ethical framework (that will inevitably fail) in an inward subjective way so that one can come to a place of living “ethically,” (I’m thinking ethically here in the sense of SK/Climacus’ Postscript, which I’m assuming you’re familiar with)–they can come to live “ethically” without the framework, or maybe in spite of the framework.
So, in a way, any ethical system is doomed to failure because ethical systems are un-ethical. However, they are “necessary” in the sense that one only comes to this understanding by “passing through” the failed ethical system (I think you used these words). Is that at all close to the point?
It would seem that the key is not the “what” of the ethical framework, the content, but instead the “how.” One should not boil down Christ’s life and teaching to an ethical system, be it the system of the fundamentalist Christian or the so-called socially just liberal–but the point was who Christ was and who we are in the wake of the incarnation and the resurrection.
A bit of a nitpick on the story of the mouse–I think the story only gets to half of the point. Many times I think it’s not only what we DO but who we are. That is, the female mouse could have outwardly loved the other mouse, showed that in her actions, but inwardly she was really in love with the other mouse. A person might do all the right things, live “ethically,” but inwardly they’re rotting, so to speak. Or they may seem to do all the wrong things but inwardly there is some reason we are not aware of. In other words I’m not sure we can know the truth of another person based on what they do any more than what they say or what they think.
Finally, I think the whole not needing to go to church after you’ve arrived in some way seems based on a narrow view of what church is or can be–that is, some place we go once a week to listen to a lesson. Most of the church communities I know are not that at all but a “place” to live life alongside one another. In a way they are similar to the communities you’re discussing where people are free to come as they are in grace, and I’m not sure there’s ever a time where a person moves beyond that. Perhaps I missed the point on that one.
Anyway, enough time wasted writing comments on a blog. Thanks again for the thoughtful article and interview and the graceful and original way in which you present your self and your thoughts.
always with hope,
isaac