If I told you I was an ornithologist, you could conclude that, like John James Audubon, I study birds. If I say I'm an economist then you would presume that, like Alan Greenspan, I study markets. But if I claim to be a moralist you would not presume that I study morality, but think that, like Gladys Kravitz, I'm simply an intolerant, prudish, busybody.
Such is the degraded state of language (and morality) that "moralist" has become a synonym for judgementalism rather than being defined as a "teacher or student of morals and moral problems." Moralist has joined terms like liberal, fundamentalist, and Puritan in the lepers' colony of language. While some people choose to live with these labels, most others avoid them in order to prevent being infected by their malignant connotations.
Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?
The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:
Moralism is un-Christian -- A few years ago my friend David Wayne wrote a thoughtful critique of moralism, specifically when it takes the form of "phariseeism." For the most part, I agree with his post, but I take issue when he says, "Those of us who use the term 'moralist' pejoratively contrast the moralistic approach to life and ministry with a gospel centered approach."
While Pharisaism is indeed a form of moralism, not all moralism is Pharisaical. After all, Jesus was as much of a moralist as his Pharisee critics. The difference is that he had a God-centered view of morality that was rooted in grace, while they had a man-centered view of moral behavior that was founded in legalism.
Moralism is the same as legalism -- Some people, however, might criticize the answer to the last objection because they assume that moralism is the same as legalism. There are a number of problems with this view. Utilitarians and virtue ethicists, for example, would disagree with the idea that all morals are always law-based (deontological). But even deontologists and divine-command theorists can agree that there is a difference between being good (adhering to a moral law) and merely acting good (which is all that is required by legalism).
Moralists aren't perfect, so who are they to judge? -- Imagine that a mathematician makes a mistake while balancing her checkbook. Would we be justified in dismissing her claims about addition and subtraction because she sometimes makes mistakes in their application? Such an idea is naturally absurd, but it is just as peculiar to assume that only a morally perfect being (there is only One) can teach, study, or make claims about morals.
Moralism is ineffective -- If I praise a child's generosity, are they more or less likely to share with others in the future? Generally speaking, I would say that reinforcing good behavior increases the likelihood that they will continue to be generous. Obviously, those who believe in the strawman version of moralism will not believe this is an adequate example. But does it not identify a moral position and advocate that a person engage in a specific behavior? It therefore fits the general pattern of moralism, which can be either effective or ineffective depending on the context and moral problem.
What then is the role of the moralist, specifically the Christian moralist?
For a Christian, to "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is akin to how a doctor can "love the patient, but hate the disease." The role of the moralist is, I believe, similar to that of medical doctors: the elimination of sickness.
The late media critic and educator Neil Postman used this same medical analogy in describing the proper role of teachers. In his essay ?The Educationist as Painkiller", Postman proposes that educators don't try to make students intelligent--because we don't know how to do that--but instead try to cure stupidity in "some of the more obvious forms, such as either-or thinking; overgeneralization; inability to distinguish between facts and inferences; and reification, a disturbingly prevalent tendency to confuse words with things."
The physician knows about sickness and can offer specific advice about how to avoid it. Don't smoke, don't consume too much salt or saturated fat, take two aspirin, take penicillin every four hours and so forth. I am proposing that the study of education and practice of education adopt this paradigm precisely. The educationist should become an expert in stupidity and be able to prescribe specific procedures for avoiding it.
"Stupidity is a form of behavior," adds Postman, "It is not something we have; it is something we do." The presence of stupidity can therefore be reduced by changing behavior. In a similar manner, I believe the student of moral problems can, like Postman's paradigmatic teacher, play a role in curing moral sickness and decay by helping people to avoid moral stupidity.
Although I consider myself an avid student of moral problems, I am woefully inadequate as a teacher. Fortunately, my mentoring role as a moralist is greatly simplified by the reality of the natural law. Since the moral law is already "written on the heart", all that is often needed is to remind people what their conscience already tells them. For as Samuel Johnson said, "People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed."
"But if I claim to be a moralist you would not presume that I study morality, but think that, like Gladys Kravitz, I'm simply an intolerant, prudish, busybody.
Such is the degraded state of language (and morality) that "moralist" has become a synonym for judgementalism rather than being defined as a "'teacher or student of morals and moral problems.'"
Does a pugilist study boxing, or does he box?
"Moralist" can mean a philosopher concerned with morals OR one concerned with regulating the morals of others. It is not the language that is degraded here; it is your understanding of it. Don't you look words up before you do this sort of post?
Rob:
Don't you read posts before you comment on them?
I'm not sure how I might re-write the post you referenced today, but I have been challenged recently in my thinking on these matters. RTS iTunesU has John Frame's ethics class available and he addresses this issue at some length. From my perspective the critique of moralism has largely come from the reformed camp, and I think the basics of the critique are spot on - the bible is a message of redemption, not mere moral reformation. Also, it is useful to keep in mind that many of the great heroes of Scripture had less than stellar morals - i.e. how in the world did Samson end up in the hall of fame of faith in Hebrews 11? Samson can only end up there if redemption is at the heart of the Scripture, not moral reformation.
On the other hand, Frame brings out that some of us have overreacted. You simply can't take the category of "moral example" or "moral command" from the bible and render it obsolete or out of bounds. For one, no matter how much you filter the Ten Commandments through a "redemptive-historical" hermeneutic, you can't remove their imperatival force - they are still commands and obedience is still expected.
I think we tend to swing in reactionary poles - I know I often do. I did have a very legalistic time in my life where I pretty much ran off all my friends and rendered myself useless for ministry, and I do think the American church (forgive the generality here) has been very legalistic. So, whether or not we chose the right word - "moralism" - to attack, I think the critique has been necessary. But maybe some of us have swung too far to the other side and need to rethink our views, or if we decide that our views are sound, at least rethink our rhetoric.
I suppose one could try to resurrect "moralist" as a term applying to one that studies morals - although I am not sure where the professional future of that job lies. In the secular world, ethicist would probably do better. For the follower of Christ, we probably should be looking at how the secular world we are trying to reach views our moral claims and prescriptions.
First, Christ's primary ministry was to the Jews - the religion of His birth and the community His ministry was launched in and directed to. He shared a common moral framework, and indeed a common citizenship in a theocracy - or at least one repressed by the Romans. The group of Pharisees he was most likely railing against were those calling Jews to ultra-holiness, and strict adherance to relgious law and custom, in order to stave off the inroads of hellenization; and to keep Roman rule from breaking their faith community. Of course, in about 30 years they would combine with Zealots to start the first of three wars with Rome that would destroy Judah. So, Christ warned against the very things our current moralists and legalists attempt to organize: the creation of rules and customs to be strictly adhered to in order to stave off secularization of our religion. Indeed, we find our extremes wishing to legislate those rules and customs into law. Christ instead talked about writing these laws on our hearts, and not in stone. In being pure, not acting pure. And criticized those who would lay additional moral and legal burdens on God's people.
Paul would do the same as the church formed. He did not expect pagan society to follow Christian rules - his moral prescriptions focused entirely on internal church life; and, indeed, he made it clear that we must be "all to all" in order to bring people to Christ so that the morality of God even applied to them at all. At the beginnnings of Romans 2, right after those famous verses and homosexuality and more in Romans 1:18-32 we have this chilling warning against trying to take the moral high ground:
Can you have the kindness, forbearance and patience of God while knowing that only His kindness will lead folks to repentance? Then, indeed be a moralist. Otherwise, I think a better idea is to realize that no one cares what you think about their morality until they know you love them.jd: "Don't you read posts before you comment on them?"
Yes, I do. Do you have a specific criticism in mind about my comment, or are you just insatiably curious?
I read Joe's post and I commented on the part I found troubling. To do so is a common practice around here. When I agree with Joe, like on the Danish cartoon controversy, I often express that as well. I am a student of lexicography and language change, so I zeroed in on that part. I didn't mean to put a bee in your bonnet, jd.
Rob:
Your comment about Joe's post was too snarky to be serious. You completely ignored the overall point to set us all straight on the Webster's definition of moralist. Webster's definition might have no application to this discussion, but apparently that doesn't matter to a lexicographer and "language change" student.
"Webster's definition might have no application to this discussion"
I'm not the one who brought the definition up, jd.
"You completely ignored the overall point to set us all straight on the Webster's definition of moralist."
I only set Joe straight. It seems to me he got off on the wrong foot with this post. I may comment on his main points later.
Joe's an adult, mature and capable. He doesn't need you to protect him from picky English teachers.
fleetguy:
Aren't you confusing how we as Christians treat others (christians or non) with how we as Christians try to influence the standards of the state?
I absolutely agree with you on a personal level in everyday dealings with people I meet face to face. That's hard to do. It's even hard being civil with the regular trolls at this blog. But I do believe you're right that judging others means acting in a way that says I'm better than them. Is that a fair way of looking at your meaning?
Is it also fair to say that if we take your position to its logical outcome, then we can make no laws whatsoever?
I guess I'm wondering how a society based on your thinking would look. Are you a Quaker? If you are, I don't think I can have a logical discussion with you. If you're not, what is the basis for making judgments on whether or not citizens are living according to basic decency? Can we imprison or execute people for committing crimes, or are we being hypocritical?
You mentioned the homosexual issue, but I hope that is not the overarching theme of your problem with moralism, and I hope you can explain your position without getting into the problem of homosexuality.
jd
Great questions. No, I am not a Quaker - I would consider myself an Evangelical.
It is not that I do not think we can legislate at all - we are citizens and we have beliefs that are going to drive our activities in the public square: I am also not schizophrenic.
Homosexuality isn't a particular point for me - although I do think some Christians have gotten a bit crazy over the issue. It is certainly not the "worst" sexual sin (if they can be ranked); nor the greatest threat to Christian marriage. Adultery probably qualifies for both of those awards.
I believe in natural moral law as well - and I think there are both general and specific revelations from God: general to the human race and specific to Christianity. One you can legislate - one you cannot.
However, I agree with J. Budziszewki in the "Moralism" part of this essay - "The Problem with Conservatism": Christianity, in general, is not a legislative religion.
I think we have to be careful thinking that American, anymore than Mosaic, Law can make people righteous.We have to bring people to Christ - and let the Holy Spirit write God's law on their heart. I think that moralism and legalism actually make that harder.
I utterly love the clarity and exposition of this post! Thanks Joe!
I have been morally stupid in the past, and I hope to be less morally stupid now and in the future!
Biblical, Christian moralism, accountability, iron-sharpening-iron, and loving rebukes are all good!
Pax.