My Project

by Philip McPherson Rudisill

6/13/98

Beginning with Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason we find and grasp the appropriate realm of understanding (which is human experience, e.g., that objects don't get smaller as they get more removed and don't go out of existence when they go out of sight), * and then we find the limits of reason (where we get into delving into matters apart from experience, e.g., God, freedom of will and the immortality of the soul). Then we find the way open to Practical Reason, i.e., we find that while reason cannot establish the existence of God beyond question, it can just as little refute it (and the same holds for freedom and immortality), and so we are free to proceed into Practical Reason, i.e., the realm of where we discover what we ought to do.** Here we find the moral law to be the universal state of all rational beings, i.e., we all understand that we ought to do what, if done by all, would be acceptable to all; and this, in a word, is the moral law, namely to treat all persons (including therefore also ourselves) with dignity and respect.*** (Shades of Genesis 3:22 and Matthew 7:12!)

[* Both of which are highly synthetic and gratis assertions, the validity of which lies in this alone: it is by means of them that experience itself becomes possible--just try to think of the alternative, namely that things come into and go out of existence on their own [this probably has some import {negatively} for creationism, btw]]

[** In contrast to Pure Reason where we have learned what we can know, i.e., the limits of possible experience, at least with regard to the form, e.g., cause and effect.]

[*** It should be born in mind that Kant is merely analyzing what is already contained in the form that, when opened to the inputs of experience and desire, result in our knowledge and our willing.]

Then, since freedom could not be refuted in Pure Reason, we find that we are free to assume it in Practical Reason and then further that we are necessitated to assume it. hence, if you will: the justification for the bad conscience for all persons who ever think about what they are doing (which would be all adults). And so, while we know what we are to do, we do not always do it. The necessary conditions for the meaningfulness of this necessary assumption is the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul, which become the postulates of practical reason.

Kant then leads into Religion Within The Limits Of Reason Alone and discovers that the moral religion is that religion which places the moral law (Golden Rule) as the sole requirement for the pleasing of God (Shades of Matthew 7:12!). And this leads into a discussion and solution of the three great problems of any moral religion in general, namely: how can a person who has been evil become good (transformation), and how can we know that any new disposition/attitude will continue (assurance of transformation), and how can the sins of the past be accounted for and answered in a moral system (justification, or rather: atonement).

Kant concludes that the Christian faith is the only moral religion which has ever existed on earth.

Now we are ready to come to revealed religion, and Kant closes his work by noting that the only way that God might be pleased is for his subjects to want to do his will gladly and cheerfully.

But this is where we pick up immediately with Wesley. I take the rest of this thread from my journal of today (6/13/98), namely;

Kant's contribution: Moral perfection = conformity with the moral law; which, for men, is: conformity with the golden rule ( and without the least supplementation).

Christian perfection = moral perfection undertaken cheerfully. The sincere intention (via the commitment to Christ) is taken for the fact (and thus the thief on the cross, who did nothing, and Zacchaeus, who did much, are equated morally). This is God's righteousness (in contrast to the legalistic and materialistic and quantitative morality, so called, of men and of the Jews).

How is Christian perfection possible? [Paul tells us] by means of the belief that God does in fact wish us in his kingdom (Jesus' death for Barabbas, the least worthy of all), * coupled with the belief that God can in fact bring about the transformation of the reluctant heart into cheerful compliance (Jesus' resurrection from the literal dead, and which otherwise is humanly impossible).

[* I note here in passing that the Wesleyan is ideally suited to take advantage of this fact (recorded in all gospel accounts) through his insistence on the universality of God's love. The Calvinist is very limited here, for since he is willing to write off souls to hell as some sort of tribute to God, he has no compunction about the limitations of the efficaciously of his evangelism and so therefore if people cannot feel really desired by God, so much for them--let them rot in hell!]

Thus God's desire (to include me in his kingdom) and his ability (in fitting me for his kingdom) are taken in faith, and whereby I then in fact open myself up to the grace of God and the working of his Spirit on my flesh.

Thus to commit to Christ means an expectant intention to become like Christ. (That is a curious conjunction: "expectant intention"). Perhaps I should say: to commit to Christ means 1. an intention to become like Christ and 2. an expectation of success in that endeavor. The intention is based on the life of Christ in the gospels, i.e., that we, seeing the extent of the love exemplified there, believe that it is the only life worth living; and the expectation is based on his death and resurrection, i.e., that God wants us in his kingdom (justification via his death) and that He will fit us for that kingdom (sanctification, precursored by the perfection of the resurrected flesh of Christ) [and which both together are called salvation].

It is our own minds that estimate the life of Christ as being the only worthy life for men, for even the evil can see this; even the Jews can see that Jesus is the most worthy of all Jews to be king of the Jews.* But it is entirely the work of God that brings us to actually want to become like Christ and when that desire is coupled with a belief that God will do that if we merely want him to, this then is a matter of conviction.

[* Even if they will not admit it for fear of exclusion from the cultural group and fear of the reaction of their family members who fear in turn the punishment of God for any member deserting the faith of the fathers.]

That pretty much does it. The details include such matters as how the strong in faith, i.e., those who seek compliance with the Golden Rule as the totality of the requirements of faith, deal with the weak in faith, i.e., those who cannot accept the adequacy of the Golden Rule and seek externally additional admonitions, e.g., don't wear long hair, eat no idol food, etc., etc.

But the strong in faith is ready to take on the Islamics with their fundamental rationale, namely the Christian doctrine is confused and the demands of God are presented in such complexity as to be distracting.

We must continue to press for clarity in the sighting of the demands of God, namely in the cheerful compliance with his commands which, as we see, mean: the Golden Rule (unless Jesus is to come across as an utter simpleton in Matthew 7:12 or as a bungler with regard to what he really wants to say).

I fear presently for the UM's and think that we may be passing a golden opportunity for moral clarity with our present penchant to look for material (non-spiritual, non-internal-witness) aspects of the gospel message, e.g., heterosexuality.

God save the United Methodist Church. (and as more than a mere Museum United Methodist church).

Welcome to the Museum United Methodist Church.