I’ll be back when things are a little less busy.

Thanks!

Immanuel Kant (1704-1824; and perhaps it would be more accurate to call him “Prussian” instead of “German”) is one of the more well known philosophers in the West. He is well known for many of his ideas, but I find his moral theory especially interesting. Kant’s theory is called “deontology,” and in developing his views, he sought to describe clear moral principles that could apply in any situation. Here is one of his key moral principles:

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

What brought Kant to this principle was his belief that human persons have “absolute worth” in themselves – not worth based on what they can do or achieve. He thought that a human being is “an object of respect.” He said, “Such beings are not merely subjective ends whose existence as a result of our actions has worth for us, but are objective ends, i.e., beings whose existence is itself an end.”

In other words, Kant thought that all human persons have absolute worth in themselves, and thus deserve respect. People are not just “good for” some goal; rather, for Kant, people are just good.

It is not wrong (in Kant’s view) to treat people as a means to an end. You use the cab driver as a means to get to your destination. You use the server at the restaurant as a means to get your meal. There is nothing wrong with that. What Kant would object to, however, is using someone only as a means to an end. When I have shown disrespect for the absolute worth that a human person has by nature … then, Kant says, I have done something morally wrong.

Kant thought that each of us has a real moral obligation to treat people with respect, because every human person has intrinsic worth. I’m inclined to agree with him on this point.

Luke’s Gospel (chapter 10, and I’m paraphrasing here) tells us that an expert in Jewish law approached Jesus with the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Since this was a lawyer, Jesus responded quite naturally, “You know the law. What does it say?” The lawyer responded, “It says, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“Right!” Jesus said.

Luke tells us at this point that the lawyer wanted to “justify himself,” that is, prove that he was already fulfilling the requirements of this law. And so he asked Jesus…

Who is my neighbor?

We might automatically see where Jesus was going to go with the story. “Everyone” is my neighbor, that’s who. But our problem is the same as the lawyer’s. We don’t love everyone, nor do we want to, nor do we think that God expects us to. Instead, we draw boundary lines within which we place people whom we want to love, and then we say “These people are my neighbors, I shall love them!” And we think we are doing the right thing.

Jesus knew that this was the real problem, so he tells the (now famous) parable of the “good Samaritan.” To this lawyer, and to much of the rest of Jesus’ original audience, a “Samaritan” was a despicable, hated person; a half-breed traitor; someone who was always the bad guy of the story. But Jesus made this person into the hero of the story. His point? There are no limits on who is our neighbor.

So who is my neighbor? Well, sure, my family and friends, the people I like and want to love … these are my neighbors. But so is the abortion doctor, the member of the opposing political party, the drunk, the kid who tore up my flower bed, the zealot, the Muslim, the militant atheist … you get the idea.

If Jesus were talking to me, I suspect he would have figured out who I hate the most, and he would have made that person the hero of the story.

The first time I did this, I was surprised … but I’m not anymore. The reaction has always been the same. In every class, there are several students who immediately recognize the problem and say, “That is an absolute!”

These students understand that the statement “There are no absolutes,” is itself an absolute, and therefore is a self-refuting claim. In order to be true, it has to be false! Of course we could turn it around the other way, and say it like this, “Everything is relative.” My urge is to reply by saying “except that.” It is in the same category as a statement like, “There is no such thing as ‘truth.’” Oh, really? Is that true?

But the fact that this kind of relativism is self-refuting is not really the most important issue. I don’t think that when people say things like “There are no absolutes,” that they are actually intending to make a metaphysical claim. That kind of statement is so obviously incoherent, that people who say it cannot possibly be making a claim about whether there are absolutes.

But if it makes no sense, Why do people say it? Well, I suspect that part of the reason is that it is a kind of reaction to something they see in society. I think it is, in part, a response to the behavior and attitudes of some people in our culture who are prone to make certain kinds of absolute claims. My suspicions tend to be confirmed when other students in my classes speak up and tell me what they think about people who make absolute claims.

I was reminded of this yesterday as I read the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 6:

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. … Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. … Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Sadly, people like me (call us “Evangelical Christians,” if you like) have a well-deserved reputation for being arrogant, disrespectful, hypocritical, mean, spiteful, and just plain nasty. The same thing was true when society called us “Fundamentalists.” That word started out as a good word, but quickly got a negative connotation based on the behavior of those who claimed it. The same thing is happening now with the word “Evangelical.”

There is a big difference between standing boldly for truth (which I think Jesus wants us to do) and being hurtful toward others. But I’m afraid that most of us have a hard time telling the difference. Standing for truth doesn’t mean a hill of beans when we act like a bull in a china shop and run roughshod all over other people’s hearts. I really think that Jesus would prefer that I demonstrate his love rather than win the argument.

I suspect that if we spoke the truth in love, people would be far more willing to accept what we say. It would be easier for them to hear our absolute claims if we weren’t such absolute jerks.

One of the most interesting elements of Mere Christianity is Lewis’s response to the common assertion that Jesus was a “good teacher.” The idea is probably not original to Lewis, but he has a way of putting things that can bring the significance of it into sharp clarity.

In Chapter 3 of Book II, after highlighting some of the shocking claims that Jesus made about himself, Lewis lays it out:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up as a fool, you can spit on Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

This is the famous “trilemma” that highlights what Lewis thinks are the only reasonable options available to us about who Jesus is, given the shocking and strange claims he made about himself. He is Lord, he is a liar, or he is a lunatic. Despite the contemporary criticism of Lewis’s “argument” that have been offered, I generally think Lewis is right. Even if there are other options available, what is clear is that Jesus could not have been “a good moral teacher.”

You can get your own copy of Mere Christianity at most book retailers, including Amazon.com (I’m not affiliated with them in any way; it is just where I do most of my book shopping).

As usual, if there is an advertisement below this post, it is likely that I would never recommend the products, services, or political candidate appearing in the advertisement. WordPress puts it there so we can all blog for free!