The Purpose of the Moral Law

Romans 3:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

This passage is commonly used by Protestants to justify Luther’s idea of “salvation by faith alone.”

I think they are missing it.

Nothing here suggests that the Law—the moral law—has been superseded. No; through it “the whole world” is to be held “accountable to God.” It “testifies” to whatever Jesus represents.

To suggest that nobody can fulfill the law—that nobody is justified by it—is a very different thing from saying that nobody should try to fulfill the law, or that it is irrelevant to try.

And the difference is exactly that between a good and a bad person, between Jesus’s sheep and goats on Judgement Day.

The real point of the law, Paul explains, is to make us conscious of sin. “Through the law we become conscious of our sin.”

This involves accepting that we are not, ourselves, God; we are imperfect beings. That there is a Being and an objective moral standard that is more important than ourselves and our desires.

Which is no doubt why Jesus says, in the Beatitudes, “blessed are the meek.” With William Blake’s useful clarification: “humble before God, not before men.” Jesus himself was hardly humble in the latter sense.

When Paul says it is faith in Jesus Christ that justifies us, he does not mean faith in, say, the historical accuracy of the gospel record, or faith in the proposition that the historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. He does not mean calling upon the name “Jesus” in prayer.

For if he meant only using that name in prayer, “Jesus,” it would be nonsensical. That is not even the man’s real name; it is a conventional Latinization. And how is anyone to blame if they do not know it?

If he meant belief in the proposition that the gospel is historically accurate, or that this man was the son of God, the standard is both nonsensical and immoral: morality consists in seeking truth based on the best evidence available, not in arbitrarily declaring true what you want to believe. And were it the latter, what makes one arbitrary belief better than another? On what grounds could we choose one over the other, and how could God hold us accountable if we chose wrongly?

Paul must be referring here to faith in Christ in a cosmic sense: “the Way, the Truth, and the Light,” as Jesus identifies himself in the Gospel of John.

That is the Logos: the moral law and the truth. One is justified by one’s commitment to the moral law, and one’s commitment to truth. This is distinct from always obeying the moral law—it is an acceptance that one is bound by it.

I am the Way: Morality is naturally imaged as a “way,” and the metaphor is used elsewhere in the Gospels: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” Or St. John in the wilderness: “’Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’"

I am the Light: “light” is defined elsewhere in the Gospel of John to refer to both morality and truth:

“Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

This is no doubt why Jesus says, in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness”: the blessed are those who believe deeply in the moral law.

And, no doubt, “Blessed are the pure in heart”: those who do not dissemble or operate on ulterior motives.

For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Ring Them Bells, Ephesians

St. Paul on the road to Damascus

St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians seems to indicate that his understanding of the significance of being the “salt of the earth” and “letting your light shine,” as Jesus calls the poor in spirit to do in the Sermon on the Mount, is the same as ours: a calling to the creation of art. That is, the abused and depressed who are called first to Christianity are not asked merely to affirm the truth of the doctrine, nor to proclaim it, nor even to do the moral good, although all these are also expected. The chief thing they are told to do is to create beauty.

Ephesians 5 reads, speaking to the church in Ephesus:

8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. 14 This is why it is said:

“Wake up, sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”

15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Paul uses the same images as the Gospel, of light and fruit, making it plain he refers to the same call. And he specifies what God's will is: “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.”

That is, literally, making poetry and music.

Why these and not the other arts? I suggest purely because most early Christians had little practical opportunity to express themselves in other arts. Other arts require the use of specialized equipment and materials--not available to the poor Jesus called. They also require public performance or leave permanent artefacts—not advisable to the oppressed Jesus called, in a time when it was illegal to be a Christian. That leaves singing and poetry, an oral form, of necessity.

Heaven is owning your own instrument.

Nevertheless, churches, once they became possible, have ever since become the prime repositories in the West of all that is beautiful made by human hands: the finest sculpture, painting, music, fresco, incense, flower arrangements, illuminated manuscripts, garments. This fact is sometimes obscured by the relatively recent transfer of many of these artefacts into secular museums and concert halls. In the words of the Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church, “we decorate the place of God’s presence with the most beautiful things we have: flowers, candles, and music.”

It is telling too that Paul contrasts the creation of art directly with getting drunk on wine. This, and habitual drug use more generally, is the classic temptation of the depressed and of the artistic--”self-medication.”

The cosmos is sometimes portrayed as God's own vast musical instrument: "The Music of thr Spheres," made by the stars and planets in their motions.

The Republican Field

The US Republican candidates in snapshot, as they appear to me this December 18, moving up to the Iowa Caucuses:

Ron Paul

I’ve seen him interviewed a couple of times. I find him creepy. I saw a video interview with him in which, to a hostile audience including Whoopi Goldberg, he comes out against Roe v. Wade, and does it very well; so in theory I ought to warm to him. But then he ruins it by immediately trying to make me buy the contention that the US economy has been doing badly, and a stronger economy would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Similarly, lower taxes are going to restore manufacturing to the US that is now going to China. And, elsewhere, ending the war in Iraq is going to allow him to end income tax.

These are not solutions; these are slogans. He’s nothing but a snake-oil salesman.


Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is instantly likeable, and a talented, skilled, speaker; and that is an important qualification. But I cannot forgive him for what seem to have been anti-Mormon cracks against Romney; and for seeming to use his religion for political gain. If I am right in my impressions, that is the behaviour of a Pharisee.

As a Catholic, too, I wonder: if Mormons aren’t good enough for him, what about Catholics?

He also lacks foreign policy experience, which is probably the most vital experience for a president to have. His notion of abolishing the income tax is, again, snake oil, and makes me doubt his honesty.

As a tactical matter, too, I expect, if he were nominated by the Republicans, that he would be an easy target for the Democrats in a general election.


Mitt Romney

Romney radiates competence. He did an exceptional job in business, a fine job with the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and a fine job as governor of a non-Republican state. He seems to be doing a fine job with his campaign. So it seems likely he would do a fine job as president. He seems to be a good speaker, and it does not hurt to look presidential.

One thing that troubles me about Romney is that he comes from a political dynasty. We have seen too much of that lately, in the US and Canada, and it tends in an anti-democratic direction. This is a minor quibble, but it is there.

And then there is the issue of his political views changing as required by his ambitions …


Fred Thompson

People complain that he doesn’t seem to really want the presidency. This is entirely in his favour. Not wanting the job is a strong qualification. Wanting it too much is scary. It suggests an abnormal ego.

People complain that he is lazy. The same could have been said of Ronald Reagan, or Winston Churchill. It speaks in his favour that he is not always charged up; he may simply have a healthy sense of priorities. And this may also be the artistic temperament—like Reagan and Churchill, Thompson has genuine artistic talents. Like Reagan and Churchill, he may be the strongest, most effective man in the room when the chips are down.

Being a skilled actor is also, make no mistake, a strong qualification for the presidency. The US Presidency is mostly smoke and mirrors, a bully pulpit; being able to persuade large audiences is its strongest power.

He has been ill-served by his campaign; that may speak to his executive ability.


Rudy Giuliani

Even before 9/11, he performed apparent administrative miracles in New York: fixing the budget, cutting crime. One of the most impressive performances by any CEO anywhere, anywhen. That earns him serious consideration for the presidency; it is an executive position.

And he will be associated forever with 9/11—he has already become a national symbol. This would help him a great deal as president. It almost seems almost morally wrong, after 9/11, to consider anyone else.

There has been a whiff of scandal lately with the NY books—but to my ear, Giuliani’s explanation sounds completely plausible. Anyone who has ever worked for a government or quasi-government agency knows that this kind of shuffling of papers is commonly necessary to get anything done. I don’t think the “scandal” would matter if it did not remind everyone of Giuliani’s rather untidy personal life.

And as to that—I don’t care a flip. It is just not relevant. A public official’s private life is just that, private.


John McCain

McCain was right on Iraq, from the beginning. He stuck to his guns and took the heat when it cost him politically. He deserves to get the credit now. He’s proven himself an honest man, he’s proven himself a brave man, and he’s proven himself to understand foreign and defense policy better than anyone. These are probably the three most important qualifications for being president.

McCain, at the moment, would be my first choice for Republican nominee. Giuliani would be second; Thompson or Romney even up at third. Huckabee fourth; I could not support Paul.