On Theocentric Ethics

Book Review: James M. Gustafson. Ethics from a Theocentric Perspective. Vol. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. pp. 1-156.

An Interpretation of Our Circumstances

Gustafson points out the dangers of legalism as a threat to the integrity of Christian morality and freedom, attaining salvation through good works. Prohibitions, rather than aspirations, stimulate legalism. To this extent, Gustafson tries to propose a challenge to humanly imposed ethical stance. Here, some elements affecting ethics were explored by the author.

Some Aspects of Our Culture. From the ancient of times, man has been conscious about the power beyond his ability to control. He seeks to dominate and control these forces to gain security in life. On the other hand, cultures depend on this growing capacity to control. He defines culture as “the environments of artifacts and meanings which are shaped to render the life of human community more immune to the uncertainties of natural conditions, human feelings, and historical events”(4) on which man also became dependent as they interact with nature, including artifacts, myths, and symbols. Man achieved a lot (genetic research, health care, therapies, etc.) to master his world on the ground of “human valuation” and enrichment of human experience, well-being or happiness. Even in economic struggles, social and behavioral, and policy science, human valuation is preeminent.

Some Aspects of Religion. In relation to persons and cultures, religion has a utility value. It provides benefits to its adherents—i.e. myths to express meaning in life, cultic rites to remove threats to well-being, etc. “Religion functions as an aspect of culture to assure persons and communities that even in the events which most threaten their individual and corporate lives, there is some ultimate purpose at work.”(17) Here, religious concepts are functional for the well meaning of life of the individual and community, resolving the dilemma that threatens them. Moral actions became “instrumental” not to God but to sustain human purposes. God is only “incidental”. This is the temptation to religion: “to put the Deity and the forces of religious piety in the service of the immediate needs and desires of individuals, small groups, and societies.”(25) Gustafson laments that religion, even biblical one, with all its theologies, practices, symbols, myths, rhetoric, devotions, etc, has been instrumental in serving for human interest rather than God’s. God became an instrument to serve humans rather than man as an instrument for God.

Religious Studies. Recently, there was a growing interest in relevance of stories, narratives, biographies, graphic arts and music in relation to theology. As Gustafson analyzes the treatments given to these religious disciplines, he maintains that:

The view that religion is instrumental to various human needs, that it is of utility value to its adherents, becomes a very accurate description of religious beliefs and activities; it has, through different theories a wide and deep explanatory power when applied to religion. What comes naturally to religion—its human benefits—is now substantiated by vast amounts of data from various cultures and by various (and competing) theories about which needs it meets and how they are filled.”(30)

The Theological Scene. Theologians struggle with epistemology as science and religion are advancing. One central problem that they have to face is the problem of God for he is more than what empirical phenomena can observe through scientific means. The knower’s challenge therefore is vast as the attempt to understand the mystery goes on. Despite of this intellectual challenge, theological enterprise refuses to quit. Some theologians took the “natural” way for theology to tread. But deliberately, Karl Rahner insists that God is a mystery and can never be an object to be taken like a phenomenon in the world. Gustafson criticizes also Tillich’s “God is being-itself” as ethically deficient for it fails to communicate holiness in experience and basically “anthropocentric”, a utility device for the use of human aims. Moltmann’s eschatological standpoint also fell in Gustafson’s opinion for its political inclinations in the order of creation. Still, the centrality of man’s valuation is perceived, even in the theological propositions of R. Neibuhr and Process Theology.

The Preoccupation with Theological Method. The task of theology was exposed by Gustafson mainly from Kaufman’s God The Problem. The absence of consensus to theological methodology has been elemental to the chaos at present. To this, Gustafson calls this preoccupation as “philosophy of theology” not philosophical theology or process theology. Due to current academic situation, theological method is inevitable. Modern theologians justify their formulations to a systematic theology; he also points out the prevailing interest of theologians with other theologians rather than on God. He insists that the “subject matter of theology does not permit perfection of method, though some methods are more adequate than others for specific purposes. The purpose of theology is the prior and more important question. All methods of investigation, including theological ones, are instruments of purposes.”(68)

Christian Ethics. Generally, the whole practical purpose of Christian ethics is: “to assist morally serious Christian people to make proper moral judgments and engage in right moral actions, and to stimulate Christian people to reform (or in some cases defend) the social arrangements of their societies and of the human community as a whole.”(69) Nonetheless, Gustafson concerns himself with the prevailing emphasis on social moral, i.e. social gospel, liberation theology movement, as unrealistic and theologically deficient.

Philosophical Ethics. Gustafson analyzed the historical development of modern moral philosophers where most of them did not base their ethical position on theological foundations. The classic natural-law tradition was also scrutinized of which teleological and basis on revelation fails. “The Historical and contemporary evidence, however, is clear. Not all rational persons agree with the basic assumption that the operations of the mind correspond with moral order of the universe.”(78) Gustafson is affirmative that all traditional ethics is anthropocentric.

Conclusions. In all aspect of human life, man has become the measure of all things where all things, even religion and God, were put in service of man. “Man is always the measurer of all things.”(82) By implication, this is a “denial of God as God”(84).

Theocentric Ethics: Is It Ethics in the Traditional Sense?

The Central Reference Point: Man of God? The question on ethics covers qualities in deontology and teleology. It also deals with the main concern: the point of reference. While the world suffers with anthropocentrism, Gustafson proposes a theocentric approach to morality. “Morality was to be governed by God’s will, not man’s will; it was to be governed by the law of the Diety, not by the custom of man.”(89) For him, man must not be the measure of all things whether good or bad, but that it should be determined by the divine ultimate purposes. There should be limits to human actions. While God is not morally arbitrary, he has created a world with moral direction built into it. Norms of morality must consider the place of man in ordering the nature objectively but that “the Deity has so designed all things for man as the chief end of his creation there is good reason to doubt this.”((2) Gustafson questions the positions of Catholic natural-law and Calvinistic providence due to its anthropocentric emphasis on man’s well-being. He also includes the social gospel’s identification of God’s will with the good of mankind, the same thing on liberation and neo orthodox theologies. The concept of the gracious Go is simply was for man.

Whether a moralist has to consider the teleological and deontological values of an ethical stance, “the good that God values must be more inclusive than one’s normal perception of what is good.”(96) Accordingly, the major reasons why anthropocentric emphasis permeated theology and ethics are the embarrassment to the possibility that God is amoral in human terms and the egocentric predicament that from the challenge of theodicy. Because man has the capacity to measure all things, this problem arose. Gustafson insists that God’s purposes are not necessarily identical with man’s perceptions. God’s setting the limits for human pursuits is one example.

A Moral Pause. Anthropocentric focus is to protect the dignity of individual and human species as a whole. This is backed up by biblical and Christian traditions. Even Calvinism is permeated with anthropocentric concentration. The more the focus is magnified in the Enlightenment. Moreover, Gustafson cites the dangers of extreme anthropocentrism in relation to nature. Self-destruction is inevitable in unlimited liberties. There is also a tendency to romanticize nature in ecological ethics that in fact nature can be destructive (i.e malaria outbreak, parasites in polluted water and human wastes, natural calamities, etc.). Respect for nature must be distinguished from reverence of nature. While man is interdependent with nature, he must not forget the significance of the centrality of God in ethical considerations with careful attention given to risky fanaticism (harming and killing others in the name of God or Allah).

A Religious and Theological Pause. The preoccupation for human predicament has been a central object in religion. Even salvation and well-being are geared towards self and God is made exists for the benefit of man. Gustafson maintains that there is nothing novel on this theological-ethical phenomenon. Covering the Near East, Greek, Hindu, Islam legacies, God or gods was defined by humans even in the problem of theodicy. “To interpret the justice of God differently does not make indifferent to human suffering and flourishing, but it does set these concerns within a different and wider theological context.”(112)

Conclusions. He suggests, therefore, that there should be a shift from anthropocentrism to theocentric ethics focus of attention. He succinctly states his moral imperative: “we are to conduct life so as to relate to all things in a manner appropriate to their relations to God”(113) He seeks to reevaluate whether the chief end of God for man is “salvation” or “glorify God”. It may not be, but that ethics’ concern is to discern the will of God “a will larger and more comprehensive than an intention for the salvation and well-being of our species”(113)

Convictions and Procedures: An Interlude

Convictions: The Priority of Human Experience. Gustafson agrees that: “Human experience is prior to reflection”(115) Experience is important to religion and morality, influencing all of human life’s aspects. Prescriptive moral theories are based upon accounts of human life embracing cognitive, affective, and volitional aspects of experience. It should be remembered also that experiences are articulated and given meanings through cultures including its language and symbols. In social perspective, human experiences are seldom completely individualistic. They are shared and significant in group. The same is to be true in theology and ethics; cultural and community context must be considered.

Convictions: Religion, “Others,” and the “Other”. As part of human experience, religion, in all its variety, shares common recognition of things beyond human control. The reality of the Other is evidently beyond empirical investigations. The leap towards this Other makes religion different to what is secular. Steps towards monotheistic religious life and faith include shared experience of others and the Other.

Procedure: Theological Tradition and Development. The Bible does not seem to provide a single ethic. There are several strands in the New Testament that warranted alternatives in the progress of Christian ethics. Classical natural-law tradition, contemporary phenomenological philosophy, and cross-cultural universals are among the popular mainstream of moral proponents today that seeks to address the present ethical point.

Concluding Reflections. In sum, Gustafson believes that it is possible to isolate three types of purposes for a theologian-ethicist: 1) defending a tradition using revelation or particular “confessions” as particular basis, 2) development of tradition seeking to justify its truth as an “apologetic”, or 3) accepting accountability for developing aspects of tradition. Here, Gustafson prefers the third ideal-type on which he sees himself as a constructionist theologian-ethicist.

Response

Gustafson’s idea challenges the mainstream western theology and ethics where he implies that the God Christians worship is not necessarily a Christian God. He is not a God according to the whimsical intentions and motivations of man as the measure of all things whether in terms of religion, theology, and morality.

Questions for Group Discussions

1. If ethics is to be theocentric, which God?

2. How can one be sure that what he perceives of God is identical with the morality of God?