Deciding in Hope (II)
How should
the content of Christian hope affect Christian behavior?
In September 2016 I wrote an essay,
“Deciding in Hope,” in which I analyzed the core idea in any “ethics of
hope.” The idea is that moral
decision-making should be “congruent” with the things we hope for. By our actions we should promote, or at least
not hinder, the objects of our hope.
Difficulties arise in forced-choice situations in which actions that promote
the thing we hope for have the undesired effect of promoting evil. An illustration from that essay:
Suppose I think candidate A is the best choice for the
office, but I also believe that candidate B is more likely to win, and further,
I believe candidate C, running neck-and-neck in the polls with B, is completely
unfit for office. In voting it seems I
must act in accord with my hope that A win by voting for A, or act in accord
with my fear that C will win by voting for B.
Problematic forced-choice
situations also arise in regard to Christian hope. Hope is not the only factor in moral decision-making,
even for Christians. Before we can see
how this is true, we need a description of Christian hope. Here’s a list:
1.
Christians hope for resurrection from the dead.
2.
Christians look forward to a new heaven and new
earth.
3.
Christians hope for eternal life with Jesus and
all the saints.
4.
Christians look forward to the Kingdom of God
fully accomplished.
These four elements are obviously
rooted in the New Testament. Probably
someone will suggest other aspects of Christian hope. That’s okay; I don’t argue the list is
exhaustive. But it gives enough detail
to illustrate the difficulties of an ethics of hope.
What about peace? In Romans 14:17 Paul says, “ . . . the
kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” In the context of that passage, the apostle
is urging Christians to live peaceably together—now, in this life. Surely all Christians will agree that when
the Kingdom of God is fully accomplished we will live in peace with one another. Without question, Christian hope looks
forward to peace. How can our
decision-making now be congruent with this hope?
Pacifist
Christians say we should live into our hope by not fighting wars. Just War
Christians say we need to be realistic; if we let our hope of peace control
our decisions we will increase the evil in the world. Peacemaking
Christians argue mere avoidance of war isn’t enough; we should work to bring
about the peaceful future we desire. Holy War Christians say we will have
peace only after all unbelievers have been destroyed, either by Jesus or us,
his soldiers. Variations on these
positions abound. Few Christians
actually admit to believing Holy War theology.
The great majority affirm the Just War theory. Historically, though, Christian “just” wars
look like “holy” wars. Christians have
killed their enemies, including other Christians and non-combatants, with every
weapon ever invented.
I suggest that if peace is an
element of our hope, it ought to show up in our decisions.
What about money? This question doesn’t show up explicitly in
the four points listed. What do we
expect though? In the new earth when
Jesus reigns, what will be the economic relationship between believers? Isn’t it obvious there will be no price
gouging, slavery, exploitation, fraud, swindling?
No doubt many Christians would
object: there won’t be economic relationships in heaven. Heaven is spiritual. We won’t own things.
Really? If by “spiritual” you mean non-bodily, your position relies more on
Platonic dualism than the New Testament.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul insists the resurrection will be bodily. Paul also told the Corinthians we would
“judge angels.” I suggest that in heaven
there will be work to do. And if there will be work, there will be an
“economy” of one sort or another. It may
be true that we won’t own things, perhaps because everything will belong to
everyone. (Socialism in the
Kingdom? Oh my!)
N.T. Wright, in Surprised by Hope, presses hard on the
money question. In the new age, when
Jesus reigns, surely there will be no starvation, no shortage, and no
injustice. If that is our hope, Wright
asks, how should we think about economic relationships between Christians
now? What should we do about international
trade and debt? Shouldn’t Christians in
rich countries press their governments and international agencies like the IMF
for debt forgiveness/restructuring? We
know that the indebtedness of poor countries helps hold hundreds of millions of
people in poverty. Some of the world’s
poor are fellow Christians. How should
we act toward them?
What about slavery? Paul explicitly teaches that in Christ there
is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free. We are all one in Christ! Surely in heaven there will be no slaves,
except in the sense that we are all “slaves” to Jesus. If this is true of our hope, should it not be
reflected in our politics now?
Does the example of slavery seem
outdated? It’s actually quite relevant,
in more than one way. First, slavery
still exists; it did not end when Russia outlawed serfdom or America freed its
slaves. Christians should press their
governments to stop forced labor and sex slavery.
Second, the slavery example reminds
us of the dangers of “realism.” Two
hundred years ago, in both the United States and Russia, there were plenty of
Christians who would acknowledge Christian hope (no slavery in the Kingdom) and
yet hold that in a fallen world there was no alternative. They could not imagine how such a powerful
institution as serfdom, which had existed for hundreds of years, could be
erased. And there were other arguments,
now regarded as fallacious, that slavery and serfdom were God’s will.
We must guard against the
temptation to split off our hope from our actions. If we hope for the Kingdom of God, we should
live into that hope.
