| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
Thus, forty years ago, I accepted this proposal of Christianity that Nietzsche detested. However, I do not think that it is enough to have faith even now. I feel that there are many people in the church who like authority. There is a tendency to conform to a social elite orientation that values large companies and high education. I look back on my visits to the church as memories of stepping into a world whose values had regressed by decades. Until then, I had had quite a few close friends, but I had not been able to make any of those kinds of friends at church. The church felt like the "Seken [Secular world]".
What is necessary is to acknowledge our sins and have faith that teaches us that there is no solution to those sins. However, it is almost certain that faith in Jesus, which brings forgiveness of sins, does not necessarily serve to elevate a person's ethical consciousness. Immediately after confessing that Jesus was the Christ, Peter, Jesus' chief disciple, had a discussion with his companions about who was the greatest among them (Mark 9:34). It seems that this kind of worldliness cannot be fixed by faith. The fact-based nature of Christian faith implicitly has a merchant-like principle that being utilitarian is wise.
On the other hand, of the disciples mentioned in the Gospels, there is one, like Nathanael, about whom Jesus said, 'There is nothing false in him'(John1:47). There were also people who were not Jesus' disciples, such as the lawyer to whom Jesus said, "You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34), the rich young man who left despite being shown love by Jesus (Mark 10:21), and Nicodemus who asked a sincere question (John 3:1). The church never speaks of these people as desirable, and yet Jesus seems gentle toward them.
"Placing yourself under the Bible" also means paralyzing your thinking. In addition, because Jesus and Paul criticize legalism, teaching that ethics and morality are actually an obstacle to faith, the ethical consciousness of church members is sometimes lower than that of the general public.
In addition, the core of Christian ethics is "love for one's neighbor," one of the two "greatest commandments" taught by Jesus, and it is an ethics directed outward from oneself. Therefore, it is not clear what kind of ethical consciousness toward oneself constitutes Christian ethics. Even if your motives are selfish, as long as you have faith in God and are kind to others, no one will question your motives. However, even the idea of "laying up treasures in heaven" is somehow an unpleasant way of thinking, isn't it? In the medieval church there was indulgence for sins, but in the modern church faith is the indulgence for morals.
My conclusion is as follows: The Christian faith is unique and irreplaceable because of fact - based. I agree that this faith is sufficient for "salvation" and that no other morality is necessary.
Parables in the Gospels, such as "The Owner of the Vineyard Hires Labourers" (Matthew 20) and "The Ten Young Women Welcome the Bridegroom" (Matthew 25), are probably not intended to be interpreted in a moral sense. To read in this way, the generous vineyard owner appears to be unfair and the five wise women to be stingy.
However, as is clear from the fact that these begin with the words, "The kingdom of heaven is like ...," these are parables about God's salvation, not human morality. In other words, we are taught that God's salvation is not based on human achievement, and that there are things that cannot be shared with others.
However, even if the absoluteness of God's salvation and human morality are unrelated in this way, I believe that Christian faith would be better accompanied by some kind of ethical standard that is non-fact-dependent, such as Kant's "categorical imperative" or Kierkegaard's "subjective existence". Although salvation secures us a place in Heaven and shows us how to live on earth through its grace, I feel that its highly fact-based ethics are creating a situation in the Church today similar to that in Jesus' time, when Jewish law produced strange people who were condemned by Jesus.
Since Jesus' teachings, such as the 'Sermon on the Mount', are fact-based, we cannot expect the same ethics as those sought by 'some people' in Essay 4. In Christianity, the Old Testament law does not serve as a guiding principle for believers, because it is positioned as a "guardian" until one comes to faith (Galatians 3:24) and as a "result" to the faith through actions (James 2:21-25).
In 1 Corinthians, it is written that "faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."(13:13), which seems to prioritise ethics over faith. However, in this case, "love" is spoken of at a stage where the world believed in through faith is confirmed to be true at the coming end of the world, so it is still based on fact. Therefore, "saving faith" and "ethics as an attitude towards life" do not intersect, and salvation and way of life must be considered separately.
If it is right to live by an ethics that is non-fact-dependent, then it seems possible to find a way. Regardless of whether I can actually live that way, I feel like I can find it within myself. However, if it is right to know what is fact and live according to it, then I have no choice but to be taught by those who claim to know the facts.
According to John Calvin, the father of the Reformation, knowing or not knowing ultimate facts is irrelevant to ethics. Knowing this comes only from God's "choice" and depends on whether or not the person has received God's mercy. In other words, this "choice" goes beyond ethics. We cannot help but be solemn before this doctrine, but we should keep the following in mind.
We know that absurdity exists as a negative aspect of the world. However, absurdity exists even in what is considered the best thing in the world, salvation. That is the meaning of "choice". Certainly, the ultimate principle of living is probably not an ethical one. It is not values but power that rules the world, and Christianity is a religion that participates in this, as is clear from God's answer to Job's complaint in Chapter 38 of the Old Testament Job.
God is not only good, but He is also our creator, and as creatures we are destined to be judged at His sole discretion. As Shinran taught, "Hell is the abode appointed for us,"
However, even if we firmly believe in these things, there is no reason to disregard non-fact-based ethics. Information about heaven is important, but we should also pursue morality for the brief time we live on earth. Trying to chase two rabbits at once should not be criticized. By doing so, I do not consider as if I am a good person. The Bible well teaches us that the human heart falls far short of God's standards. Therefore a certain despair about morality is already instilled in us.
Certainly, I think that holding both faith and ethics without delving into the answers is an incomplete philosophical discussion and a restrictive way of life. However, this is the current conclusion possible for those who do not believe that ethics can be achieved through devotion to Christian faith.
However, such a person may continue to have grandiose resolution separate from their faith. In one of the comic books I read in my youth, there was an Asura as the main character. The role that Jesus played in the story was so absurd that I no longer bother to reread it, but I remember that King Ashura would say something like this, given his character.
"Jesus, our God. It is laughable that your people are the sheep and you are the 'good shepherd'. What is the shepherd's job duty? You who deceive the sheep!"
If the Christian God, despite being on my side,――like a shepherd to the sheep――turns out to be evil in the end, I too will abandon my fact-based faith and return to idealism, still pursuing the truth. It's a bit Nietzschean or cartoonish, but I am willing to do so. Let me ask again, "By what does man live?" just as I once did, when I decided not to live toward the goals and dreams that the utilitarian world had prepared for us.