Clarence Thomas' "Bill of Obligations" / Charles Park

Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas commented in April that we should have a bill of obligations to go with our bill of rights.  I appreciate his point that unbounded pursuit of rights can actually undermine a society built on the bill of rights.

For example, there have been a rash of scandals by high-ranking officials in our country:  Governor Sanford, Senator Ensign, our former Governor Spitzer, Rep. Pickering, Rep. Sherwood, and on and on. 

They were selfishly pursuing their own gratification with little regard to their obligations to the public and their own families.  Each time a high-profile scandal breaks, there is a little more cynicism, little less trust, negatively affecting the bonds of a society.

Spitzer argued recently that this is just a reflection of the wider society.  I’m not sure what to think of that, coming after his own failures.  But, perhaps it’s true their behavior was influenced by the widely shared sentiment in the popular culture that you only live once, you owe it to yourself to seek your happiness and fulfillment, no matter what.

In some of their cases, I guess they went with the popular argument, if you’ve found ‘true love,’ you’ve got to go for it, no matter if you’re already married, no matter what it might do to the people you profess to love the most, like your children.  Focusing on individual rights and self-fulfillment can foster narcissism and loosen the communal bonds.  Granted.  But, I’m not sure the answer is a bill of obligations. 

Governor Sanford held a press conference admitting to his affair.  And, he said ‘I broke God’s law.’  He was a member of a Christian Bible Study group..   He was well aware of his obligations, but that didn’t stop him.  His practice wasn’t consistent with his convictions.  He’s not alone.

Pickering urged President Bush to declare a National Year of the Bible in 2008.  Sherwood was a ‘families value’ politician.  Spitzer got his fame as a moral crusader against things like prostitution and irresponsible corporate behavior.  They were well aware of their obligations.  In fact, much of their success came from pounding the table on morality and responsibility.

A bill of obligations, a code of ethics, a standard to live by, the Bible would call that ‘the law.’  Such things have a well-known history of fostering hypocrisy.  And the New Testament flat out declares it cannot help us.  "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." Galatians 3:10 (NIV)

Isn’t that surprising?  Perhaps even shocking that the Bible would say something like that?  We think of the Bible as encouraging us to behave better, to live up to a standard.  

Some codes of ethics are full of flaws.  But, the law here is referring to God’s law, so it should be perfect.  But we’re told relying on living up to a set of standards, even if it’s from God Himself  will only make life unbearable.  Wow.

But then again, perhaps this is why we see all these scandals from people who emphasize the need to live up to our obligations, whether from the religious right or from the secular left.  There’s a curse on it.

So then, we’re stuck.  Selfish pursuit of our rights leads to alienation and misery.  But trying to live by a set of code or obligations is under a curse, usually leading to burn-out and hypocrisy.

The Bible tells us Jesus went to the cross for the joy set before him.  That means He lived up to his obligations AND fulfilled his destiny on the Cross.  What made that possible?

Many things could be said on that, but the first thing that comes to my mind is His faith in the living God to come through for Him.  Now, this is different from how ‘faith’ is sometimes perceived as believing a set of doctrines and convictions.   And, trying to live up to them.  That would be just going back to relying on observing the law.  But an authentic experience and relationship with the living God who can deliver resurrection, that’s a different story.

When we trust, like Christ did, at a cost to ourselves to serve those around us, out of faith that the living God will come through to meet our needs, that’s taking on the attitude of Christ.  And when we experience God coming through, that leads to more faith, and that encourages us to do more.  Of course, there is a risk and a cost to approaching faith like that as opposed to an intellectual exercise.  But the Bible tells us that’s the only way to connect to God and make life work. 

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Galatians 5:6 (NIV)

Is this telling us that only stage 4 faith works?

Comments

[steven hamilton]

good thoughts charles...i sometimes think where the English Bible translators usually render "pistis" as "faith", it should be rendered "faithfulness"...which is within the semantic range for "pistis". i think this would be a better way of expressing things, first of all because i am a language word-nerd, but i think you are right charles in stated that when most people nowadays read "faith" they automatically think "belief"; whereas "faithfulness" is a descriptor, not just of belief-in-action, but also of relationship. faithfulness - IMHO - has that relational nuance to it...so should we now say: stage 4 faithfulness? how about that galatians passage: The only thing that counts is faithfulness expressing itself through love.

[Vinceation]

You have such a knack for communicating stuff like this clearly, Charles. Thanks.
I think this says only Stage 4 faith works given what our society and age define as "what works". As we transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3 as a culture, "what works" has to be Stage 4. Living under the curse of obligations is Stage 2 and selfish pursuit of our rights is Stage 3/Stage 1.
So absolutely it's the only thing that works for us in the West. But for societies coming from Stage 1 and Stage 2 in our world, I believe a code of obligations definitely serves a purpose for a time--as God deemed so with Israel--so long as it is understood as a waystop en route to something greater. Yes, the Law was a curse; but that could only be so after a period of time living under the Law.
Back to us: because we can see our own cultural law as a curse now, Stage 4 is all that works.

[DJ Sybear]

In sifting through Galatians recently, I too was struck by the contrast of stage 2 religion and stage 4 faith. Paul is trying to get the Galatians to remember that faith in Jesus is a different, centered set way than what came before, a bounded set life described by law. Paul makes some pretty firm statements: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (Gal 5:1 TNIV) And the full v.6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

Galatians 3:23-29 describes the difference so well:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. [Sounds like a bounded set to me. In custody, locked up, the law put in charge of us, under its supervision.]

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith [centered set faith], for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus [cultural bounded sets are now irrelevant]. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I think what these lawmakers and justices are doing in America is the same thing that the Judaizers were doing to the Gentile church. Some government officials are trying to turn back the clock and shape the people's behavior with either a religious or secular bounded set. Some minimum of that is necessary (governments are in the business of making laws, after all), but beyond that it's simply too constrictive. We live in a free country, not a police state. To quote from a favorite series of mine, "The problem with martial law is that pretty soon the people start to become the enemy."

The religious who want to enforce morality on secular people, either through interpersonal interaction or governmental advocacy, are frankly just fighting the wrong battle. Our battle is to win hearts over to Jesus, not to a new law nor an old one.

[steven hamilton]

amen, brother soul...

[Christophe]

Thank you Charles for this excellent post.
Is this telling us that only stsge 4 faith works ?

If I look at Sanford, I see a politician that used the Stage-2 mentality of his constituents to get elected, and then use the more Stage-4 type of approach to absolve himself and keep his position.

I think it would be very stage-2 to demand that Sanford resigns.

I'm not sure what a Bill of Obligation would do here.
On the one hand, if Stanford knew he'd lose his position because of this affair, he might have been a lot more cautious - but would probably have failed his wife.
On the other hand, the Law, or a Bill of Obligation would have the strong effect of communicating what is expected of husbands (for example).
The culture is not helping husbands stay faithful. And while a Bill of Obligation will not help the relationship between God and man, it will help many stay on a cleaner path...

Stage-4 doesn't reject the Law -- it rejects its claim as the basis (staple?) for relationship with God.
The Gospel also say that rejecting the Law (while mostly obeying it) and embracing the grace offerred from Jesus is the first step; then it is time to get moving and express this freedom (grace, redemption) with acts of love... (just like you said).