‘We will read the Bible seriously only when we use it to guide our thought towards a comprehensive moral viewpoint, and not merely to articulate disconnected moral claims’
(Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection & Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics 2nd Edition 1994 Eerdmans, p200)
The above claim is at its most problematic when we read the OT. It is of course foolish to imagine that one could resolve how to read the OT for ethics in one blog post, so let me simply offer a suggestion: that we read the OT for wisdom (I owe this idea to Andrew Cameron).
For how this might work we consider again the nature of rules or laws; they take some aspect of reality and make its claim on you clear. The OT Law, I think, draws on three realities: the created moral order, the particular relationship between God and Israel, and the nature of living in the Ancient Near East a few thousand years ago. As we read the OT Law we may find, then, that we are not bound by the law itself, as it was given in a specific context to specific people for a specific purpose, but we may find that we are still bound by some aspect of the reality which gave rise to the law.
So the prohibition against adultery derived from the design and purpose of marriage given in creation, and we are still living in the same creation, and so bound by the same prohibition. However the directive to build a parapet around the roof of your house (Deuteronomy 22:8) in order to prevent someone from falling from it is different. Buildings have changed, and not many of us have roofs that can be climbed on, but we are still under the requirement to make our homes safe for others to visit.
As with our discussion about rules, when we read Scripture for guidance on how to live we are not after lists of right and wrong, but rather we are hoping to build a web of understanding of God, his Son and his world, in order that we can discern and then do good.
[...] Reading Scripture Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Ethics as the New ApologeticsThe Daily Grind: The journey versus the destination [...]
In the O’Donovan quotation, is the word ‘towards’ important for negotiating ethics?
Drew, I’ve never asked that question, but as I ask it, I think so. ‘Towards’ seems to secure i) that we are interested in a comprehensive moral viewpoint, ii) that we can be reading the Bible seriously even if we haven’t ‘arrived’ as a comprehensive moral viewpoint, and iii) that serious reading will still allow us to make particular (as opposed to disconnected) moral claims without the burden of presenting a comprehensive moral order each time. If it’s doing those things, then I think it’s important, if you get what I mean – what do you think?
I’d thought of i and ii, and iii seems very practical.
Of course, it’s way too much to hang off one word, but I suspect that there is probably something about the towards that means that it is a communal direction, not an individual one, and one where communities can interact with one another on. Ie. It’s a conversation. Can’t seem to think of a passage that backs this up though…