The Cry for Virtue

Today's emerging generation of Christians is beginning to cry out for leaders whose lives are characterized by solid values and virtues.  These young believers have not only been disgusted and exhausted by the hyprocrisy permeating the institutional Church, but are growing equally dissatisfied with the laissez faire attitudes often found among a new breed of spiritual leaders.  These are leaders who, although they are pioneering new expressions of what it means to be the Church, lack the moral backbone to say "no" (when needed) to our increasingly permissive society.

Radical egalitarianism (where all ideas, beliefs, and endeavors are considered equal, regardless of merit or effort) seems well under way in it's programme of wreaking violence within the Kingdom.  Married to the self-autonomy of individualism, today's radical egalitarianism stands as a clever and relentless enemy to the gospel and teachings of Jesus, with its emphasis on self-sacrifice, ministry to the poor and marginalized, and passion for God's kingdom and will above our own.  Early followers of Christ were unashamedly known as "The Way", but such exclusivity claims are increasingly viewed today as antiquated, intolerant, and driven by institutionalized power-brokering. And in our world's postmodern reality -- where not only are the legalistic structures and practices of our Enlightenment-influenced faith being deconstructed and discarded, but so it seems are the morals and virtues of our ancient faith (one would hope for a little more healthy re-construction). The effects of a permission-giving culture are certainly visable here.  It's no wonder young followers of Christ are starting to shake their heads in disappointment over the lack of solid and visable virtues in the lives of leaders.

The Church in all it's various expressions (Orthodox, Catholic, Denominational, Independant, Emerging, etc.) therefore has a strategic opportunity to pioneer a "revival of virtue" among it's leaders -- so very much needed in a time when priests and pastors and the like continue to be viewed by the world with suspicion and distrust. Virtues such as social responsibility (e.g.caring for the poor, getting involved with local government), financial responsibility (e.g. the disciplines of saving, giving, and debt avoidance), honesty (e.g. not cheating on taxes, not breaking copyright laws), and sexual purity (e.g. saying 'no' to fornication, extramarital affairs, and internet porn) are desperately needed in today's amoral landscape.

Deepening this need even further is the effect that contemporary notions of tolerance produce when mixed with today's radical egalitarianism. When no one is "wrong", injustice inevitably will go unchecked.  When truth is always "relative", accountability and virtuous living are much more difficult to define and maintain.  The concept of "absolutes" is widely being reexamined and deconstructed today.  Either-or, in-or-out, cut-and-dry, right-or-wrong thinking is becoming increasingly rare.  Granted, some of this is a good thing.

Yet, everything in life cannot simply be reduced to "both/and" thinking. All truth cannot merely be relegated to community agreements or the oft-confusing realm of relativism. God and truth and our purpose for living cannot simply be a matter of our own creation... can it?  Young people (and I suppose, older people too) are quickly tiring of leaders who seem preoccupied with raising questions.  Well, questions are important, and often lead us through deeper reflection and consideration to the truth.  But people also want answers. Solid answers.  And they want leaders. Solid leaders.  Leaders who lead.  Leaders who believe in virtue, and who live virtuous lives. Why?  Because on many levels, this world of ours is becoming more and more insane. Forces like radical individualism and radical egalitarianism have delivered unto us a world of endless opinions, feelings, power-claims, and of course -- conflicts of interest. This is what happens when everyone lives for themselves and does his/her own thing. It's weak.

Screwed up parents.  Screwed up friends. Screwed up teachers and ministers.  Screwed up politicians and business executives.  Today's emerging generation of Christians are tired of the plethora of weak people today's world is producing.  They know somehow that Jesus offers something better, a better way of living -- a better way of living a life filled with virtue. And they long to see this lived out and modeled for them.

We must answer this call. The time is now for stepping up to the plate... for starting to live lives that are more principled and less haphazard; more sacrificial and less permissive; more in love with our Savior and less in love with our culture.

The cry for virtue is only bound to grow louder.

How loud must it get before we act?

.

Comments

[Justin Baeder]

DP-
I think most of the call for "both/and" thinking comes from those who are speaking to modern audiences that haven't been taught ton consider paradox or complexity in their faith. I don't see this so much in those comfortable in truly postmodern environments.

But what you've said is true. Virtue is rarely on the radar for too many people of my generation, myself included.

I've come to see virtue - or "character," as I prefer to call it - as not just a matter of leadership, but of eschatology.

[Ray]

I think that the Emerging Church movement needs to take the challenge of Ethicist Stanley Hauerwas seriously: "Where there is no Ecclesiology, there are no ethics." The Church must be seen, however uncomforatably, as an institution that imparts values to you, not a subject of your own value judgement. Our leaders will never be perfect, but that doesn't excuse the lack of preaching on virtue.

[Faith McCloud]

"The Church must be seen, however uncomfortably, as an institution that imparts values to you, not a subject of your own value judgment."

I think the point of what originally was observed is that the Church should not necessarily be seen as anything... but that the leaders themselves need to live the values that are seen in the bible. The youth my husband and I work with see the church as ignorant and narrow-minded (its actually made worse by the constant values pushing) and nothing will change that until Jesus changes them from the inside out. They won't even approach the church unless they meet individuals who live these values in a real way, which leads me to think...

Instead of teaching values themselves, the church needs to teach Jesus and the bits of God revealed to us. That is what is truly uncomfortable and that is the root/ basis of our values anyway. Just like with the fruits of the spirit... they are byproducts in the life of one who follows Jesus.

[Seraphim]

take the challenge of Ethicist Stanley Hauerwas seriously...

first I'd have to take Stan seriously. To Quote:

"As Christians we claim that by conforming our lives in a faithful manner to the stories of God we acquire the moral and intellectual skills, as a community and as individuals to face the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Of course this remains a 'claim,' for there is no way within history to prove that such a story must be true." (Stanley Hauerwas A community of character pg. 96)

I don't know how he can 'preach the good news' if he doesn't believe it is anything other than just a 'claim' or a 'story'.

But, that aside... how about we live Holy because God tells us too?

[Chris]

Justin, you're sounding like an amillennialist! ;)

And now you've got me wondering... when we fail to live out a "realized eschatology", and at the same time lay claim to a distorted, permission-granting view of God's grace, is it any wonder that our passion for character/virtue suffers?

[Chris]

"They won't even approach the church unless they meet individuals who live these values in a real way"

Faith, that's exactly what I'm seeing.

[Chris]

Seraphim,
Just a thought... I've not read the work by Hauerwas that you've quoted from, but I wonder if his apologetic here is one of strengthening the need for "faith."

Also, in reading your comments I'm reminded of Orthodoxy's emphasis on theosis, echoed by Wesley's teachings on sanctification. There's definitely a reason why we're hearing so much about these today.

[Ray]

But guys, Hauerwas' point isn't that the Church shouldn't teach Jesus Christ. His point is that values must be values held by a community. Even "bible values" are ultimately the judgement call of the community who is interpreting them.

What the community discerns to be the biblical values does matter.

Also, there is no contradiction between an ecclesiological body traditioning its truths to its members and a narrative/Christo-centric nature to those truths.

I think that divorcing ecclesiology from any conversation about ethics is dangerous in the extreme. And Seraphim, I have read a good deal of Hauwerwas - I love you brother, but I believe you're proof-texting a bit. that line doesn't represent SH's general ethical theology, which is kind of proto-Catholic in nature and certainly is based on 'living' the narrative examples of the gospel ;)

As for youths thinking the church is 'narrow-minded' - some are and some aren't. But it seems to me equally narrow-minded. Also it's a trait of post-millenials that they don't mind living contradictory identities. That makes being 'open-minded' almost contingent on having few set values.

That being said, I think that as always the virtues embodied in our lives are obviously the most important, but that doesn't mean that the values we want to embody in our lives shouldn't be the property of an ecclesiological body so that we're not back to ethical anarchy - which I believe is what Hauerwas was trying to prevent.

[Seraphim]

hmm, Ray... I don't think so. I also have a number of Stan the man's books. How do you change or unpack his statement that we cannot know that the story is true that it is only a 'claim?'

I'll give ya the bene of the doubt and do some more reading this pm...

Seraph

[Ray]

I think he's speaking there more of empiracal proof - we cannot "prove it". At least that's how I understand it. His ethics seem to "presume" that the story of Christ's redemptive love is true, but it will only be empiracally known by all on the other side. He takes the call of Christianity so seriously and he's so consistently against nominalism within the community that I don't think he suffers from any real self-doubt (or at least doesn't make that self-doubt part and parcel of his theological ethics).

In any case, the only point I was trying to make with him was that ecclesiology and ethics are fused together. It is a community that imparts values to its members. Otherwise its anarchy - individuals picking out how the gospel individually speaks to them. That's a recipe for egocentric interpretations of virtue disconnected from any kind of tradition. I'm not a fan, no matter how much good feeling anti-Traditionalism and anti-Institutionalism might engender in postmoderns.

[Seraphim]

I think he's speaking there more of empiracal proof - we cannot "prove it". Perhaps. But I think we can without reservation make the 'claim' that the Historical Jesus is the Jesus of Faith. That there is 'proof' if you will that he lived, died and rose again.

What you do with that is where your faith grow feet.

enough of a hyjack though. Peace!

Seraphim

[Rev. Fr. Stan]

The "Historical Jesus" topic misses the point: It is spiritual knoledge and must be spiritually discerend.

I think he's speaking there more of empiracal proof - we cannot "prove it".
The proof of the resurection is found in the changed lives of former drug addicts, the healed, and the changed under God's power.

Part of this is ecclesiology. The Gospel is not a social development or a philosophy, it is divine revelation (mystery or Raza). Thats why we dont need to improve upon it with modern innovations. We just need to learn it and do it. Only then can one understand it.

The Ecclessia is not there to enslave you but to oversee your success, if they are operating according to God's word. This is why Paul tells Timothy that an overseer must not be "Overbearing" or "Lording over others". But the Overseer is responsible for the welfare of your soul. And this will stick in the craw of the hyper-egalitarians.

[Rev. Fr. Stan]

"Married to the self-autonomy of individualism, today's radical egalitarianism stands as a clever and relentless enemy to the gospel and teachings of Jesus, with its emphasis on self-sacrifice, ministry to the poor and marginalized, and passion for God's kingdom and will above our own."

Seeking autonomy is the original sin. Adam, seeing that the fruit was good for making one wise knowing both good and evil ate it. in a sense, from an Orthodox and Chruch of The East perspective, was tryng to set himself in parity with God by trying to steal his knolege. He sought autonomy and parity with God.

I see the autonomous-individualists as basically fearfull, and also of trying to make a devils-bargain with substituion. They will substitute an ecclessia for alms and good works. But in the end its a rationalization to mix the Worlds message of self love (it used to be called arrogance and egotism), but now its self esteem, with the Gospel.

When you listen to their Gospel, however, it is basically the Socialist Gospel, not the Christian one. I was having lunch with an Episcopal deacon one day. He thought that people should be clothed and fed, but that the Gospel should never be preached. I asked him, "What good will it do to send a man to Hell with new cloths and a full belly?" "How can you, in good conscience, let someone live without Christ?"

I think his kingdom, was the secular socialist one. I cannot immagine life without Christ. "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to those who believe".

Overall, all of the Ecclesia of the Church have to be more respectable and responsible. they must live as good examples and in a matter worthy of their high calling.

The Worldly carnal-Christians are constantly trying to get the Worlds message into the Gospel, wheather that is the feminization of God, heterodoxic blending of hindu/bhuddist/socialist/muslim/whatever teachings or homosexual theology or acceptance of the Worlds philosophies and ideas. It is the job of the Ecclesia and the leadership to keep that out and to constaly affirm what it is that Christians do believe. When the Ecclessia is acting properly then all the accusations will have no merit other than grousing or willful mistrust and irrational disbelieving.

Perhapse the worst part of the hyper-individualists message is that they are preaching autonmouse-disconnectedness. They do not believe in a mystical body inhabitted and empowered by the Holy Spirit. They do not believe in loving your neighbor as yourself or considering yourself less important than others. And they do not see themselves as different than the world. therefore they deny the ressurection and the new creation.

[Benjy]

I have a different take on the above post and will have to politely disagree. If agreeing with those above, I would most side with Justin and Ray.

I don't think people today are disgusted over the lives of leaders anymore than than are disappointed over the hypocrisy of christians in general. This in large part led to the emergent movement starting.

I would add my agreement to the idea that people are more interested in our behavior than our beliefs.

And in regards to egalitarianism, it is a balance to the way we have presented our message in the past. We have caused many people to turn away b/c we feel we are better and elite, which the early followers of Christ did not do.

[Ray]

"I don't think people today are disgusted over the lives of leaders anymore than than are disappointed over the hypocrisy of christians in general."

Hypocrisy is always an interesting charge when applied to Christianity. It's a message that says its members will fall short of their ideals and thus need repentance... so holding our ideals against our behavior seems a little dishonest to me.

[Ray]

"But I think we can without reservation make the 'claim' that the Historical Jesus is the Jesus of Faith."

I beg to differ. If anything I think modern criticism has shown us why the Early Fathers did not take a historical viewpoint about their faith. The Christ of History is lost in time, it is the Christ as related by Scriptures that is the ground of Christian reality. The "experience of power" as Origen put it. I agree with Fr. Stan.

"That there is 'proof' if you will that he lived, died and rose again."

Not really. There are certain interesting points, but nothing that I can't dismiss. Physical proof doesn't get us there.

[Seraphim]

I beg to differ. If anything I think modern criticism I am no longer surprized.

Modern Criticism, Redactionism, Biblical Criticism, Jesus Seminar, neo-orthodoxy etc. Are all signs of the length man will go in his fight against God. The fact that all these things are 'new' i.e. within the last 100 - 200 years in itself makes them suspect. They are not what the church has believed everywhere and at all times. Some would see Barth, Bultman etc as prophets of the new Christian age.

I see them and their 'ilk' as creators of the New Mythology.

I'shalom

Seraphim

[Ray]

Actually the Fathers of the first four centuries rarely if ever took the Scriptures as a historical/biographical account of Christ...

Nobody is saying that we should follow the Jesus Seminar, but we do have to square with facts as they stand. In many ways my view is very "conservative", if by that one means that I try conciously to hold views propogated by the earliest Christian sources.

Luther & co. were the first ones to insist on the historical veracity of the Scriptures as the locus of truth. We only see that as 'traditional' because that's our lineage. Orthodox and CAtholic exegesis has always been intentionally allegorical.

[Ray]

hence why I said after "historical criticism has shown" that what it has shown is "has shown us why the Early Fathers did not take a historical viewpoint about their faith." I even quoted a Christian writer from the 3rd century. Hardly a sellout view unique to the past 100-200 years.

Nor is it fair to my statement to cut it off at a buzz word.

[Dana Ames]

I think there's a problem with splitting Jesus in two. I think we can trace that to a time in history that is longer ago than 150 years- it's just that the problem of splitting Jesus in two really surfaced on the American scene only then.

The people who make up the Jesus Seminar are asking some questions and coming up with answers based on I don't know what- I'm not that educated :) However, two things really caught my attention about NT Wright, when I first became aware of him. The first was that he is not afraid to deal with the questions the JSers are asking, and to use the texts ahd tools they use, and he comes up with entirely orthodox answers! -Seraphim, note the lower case "o" :) The second is that he remains on v. good personal terms with the JSers despite disagreeing so deeply with their conclusions. I found/find both of those things very remarkable.

As to the topic, today's leaders proclaim all kinds of values and virtues. It's not seeing those things lived out that is torquing people. It always has, but before the day of mass technology and service-based economy, only philosophers (educated men) had the time to talk about it; most of the rest of the population was busy surviving, with perhaps some considering how not to be hypocrites in their own contexts. I think we need more attention paid to people who ARE living with integrity, to hear their stories, in order to help us keep on and not lose heart.

Dana

[Seraphim]

Actually the Fathers of the first four centuries rarely if ever took the Scriptures as a historical/biographical account of Christ...

Like I said, the New Mythology. So the 1st century churches didn't read the Old Testament or pass around the letters of Paul or the Gospels? I don't think so.

I believe in the inspiration and historical accuracy of the Bible.
-Seraphim

P.S. Dana said:

I think we need more attention paid to people who ARE living with integrity, to hear their stories, in order to help us keep on and not lose heart.

Dana Amen!

[Pastor Art]

The exchanges historically and in our time are reflections of men thinking about their relationship by this I do not mean friendship of that concept but the type of heart cry heard in David “what is man that …” who are we why the importance the importance so deep within the being of Yahweh that He limited Himself to a body of His creation with all the inconveniences that God did not at any stretch of the imagination subject Himself to did.

How do we reconcile this “Paradox”? Is it some type of story myth formed to explain what we know around us? Is this “Jesus thing” founded upon cold hard facts determine and inflicted upon the texts written by cultures not confined or defined by our “fact” sets needed to examine “truth”. I think some of that conflict underlies the question posed to Jesus by Pilate. What is truth? Is it facts and figures - is it observation of reality passed to another like morality stories. Is it both can one exist devoid or in opposition to the other?

The Hebrew inquiry took on these questions and realized each angle has validity. They used four “levels” of investigation. The first is the plain reading - the simple literal explicit ; what is there factorial inquiry this set the foundation for or guidance of the following steps of investigation - (I do not have the order or terms before me so I am going from my faulty memory).

The second is hint implied meaning possible deeper or wider application (this helps us to establish conceptual understanding aiding in teaching “truth” to the current living situation).

The third is the search; allegorical - typological this understanding ties together themes and patterns throughout Scripture (this concept supports the Scripture interprets Scripture)

The forth is the hidden; this aspect is much maligned among moderns because it leans and can slip into Gnostic forms of understanding. Most of the teachings and writing I have come into contact with here can reflect end times stuff.

I have said that to say this the slicing up of the root of our faith has brought about the same type of inquiry into Scripture that has developed historically except in this day and time the cultural parameters imposed upon us westerners has caused us to splinter instead of become wiser. We are in conflict here when the natural methods the Rabbis saw as a unit to derive Yahweh’s wisdom we hold against one another.

What does this mean?
Pastor Art

[Ray]

Pastor ARt,

The Early Christian communities used the same methods. In fact, the CAtholic Church has formally enshrined the four-fold potential for textual meaning in their Catechism even today.

Serpahim,
The early Fathers did have letters of Paul and read parts of the Hebrew Scriptures (albeit in Greek), but they did not treat them as a literal history. In fact they insisted that to treat them as literal history made them "myths and fables", and that only Christocentric allegory would render an authentic meaning.

Read Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho', Origen's "Contra Celsum" or "Philokalia", especially chapter 15, Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" in particular book 3 (most in particular look how he expounds allegorically on Jonah in 3.20.1-2 and what he says about churches who 'in regards to letters are poor but in regards to doctrine as rich indeed), Clement of Alexandria's "Paedagogus".

If we're going to argue what the early Christians said/thought lets have some context - namely what they wrote.

In terms of Pauline letters, they don't have a literal or obvious reading. It depends entirely on the First Principles one takes into the reading of them. All the heretics claimed to follow Paul, it was the most common linking theme of all Gnostics, Marcionites, Pelagians, and Docetists. Without a hermeneutic the Epistles are confusing little documents. This is even present within the New Testament itself: "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." - 2 Peter 3.16-17

So the text itself doesnt give an evident meaning until one has already accepted the proper faith with which to filter it. That's not a big step forward for the literal/obvious reading of Scripture where Paul is concerned.

The simple fact is that human being's epistomological assumptions change over time. What we view as constituting 'truth' and 'falsehood' today is more material/physical/historical than a 1-4th century Greco-Roman would have been comforatable with. We ignore that legacy and changing epistemology at our own peril.

Dana,

NT Wright's conclusions are actually far more in line with traditional Christian readings than they are with Reformation exegesis. I like his work.

[Ray]

Pastor ARt,

The Early Christian communities used the same methods. In fact, the CAtholic Church has formally enshrined the four-fold potential for textual meaning in their Catechism even today.

Serpahim,
The early Fathers did have letters of Paul and read parts of the Hebrew Scriptures (albeit in Greek), but they did not treat them as a literal history. In fact they insisted that to treat them as literal history made them "myths and fables", and that only Christocentric allegory would render an authentic meaning.

Read Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho', Origen's "Contra Celsum" or "Philokalia", especially chapter 15, Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" in particular book 3 (most in particular look how he expounds allegorically on Jonah in 3.20.1-2 and what he says about churches who 'in regards to letters are poor but in regards to doctrine as rich indeed), Clement of Alexandria's "Paedagogus".

If we're going to argue what the early Christians said/thought lets have some context - namely what they wrote.

In terms of Pauline letters, they don't have a literal or obvious reading. It depends entirely on the First Principles one takes into the reading of them. All the heretics claimed to follow Paul, it was the most common linking theme of all Gnostics, Marcionites, Pelagians, and Docetists. Without a hermeneutic the Epistles are confusing little documents. This is even present within the New Testament itself: "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." - 2 Peter 3.16-17

So the text itself doesnt give an evident meaning until one has already accepted the proper faith with which to filter it. That's not a big step forward for the literal/obvious reading of Scripture where Paul is concerned.

The simple fact is that human being's epistomological assumptions change over time. What we view as constituting 'truth' and 'falsehood' today is more material/physical/historical than a 1-4th century Greco-Roman would have been comforatable with. We ignore that legacy and changing epistemology at our own peril.

Dana,

NT Wright's conclusions are actually far more in line with traditional Christian readings than they are with Reformation exegesis. I like his work.

[walking]

DP,

"The cry for virtue is only bound to grow louder. How loud must it get before we act?"

perhaps it will continue until people begin to follow leaders who exhibit maturity, holiness, piety, wisdom, AND integrity.

i honestly belive too many who are seen as leaders today believe they got there because of their intrinsic worth, knowledge, training, coolness, and so on. they see little need to heed the cries of the crowds.

but, then, i'm feeling a little harsh towards leaders these days.