Approximately one year ago, our former professor Chris Holmes released his excellent book, Ethics in the Presence of Christ (London: T&T Clark, 2012). I thought I would post a review I wrote on it (slightly modified from its original form as a class assignment), if only to remind those of you who haven’t had a chance to read it yet to do so, and hopefully to encourage those who aren’t aware of it to check it out.
Ethics in the Presence of Christ, by Christopher Holmes, is a profound and refreshing exploration of the foundation of Christian ethics. I say foundation because Holmes devotes little space to the practical “application” of his ethical vision (for reasons which will become clear below) and even less to specific ethical issues. Instead, he lays fresh groundwork for Christian ethical reflection, following in the theological footsteps especially of Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and T. F. Torrance. He writes from the conviction that Christian ethics must not only begin with Jesus Christ, say, with his teaching or his example; it must be a function of Christ’s presence. Thus the title of his book encapsulates his overall vision: ethics occurs in the presence of Christ, which means it is participant in the reality established and revealed in him. An ethic that does not rely on Jesus as the One who is present, that can make due with Jesus’ teachings or his example alone, is inadequate for the Christian because it treats Jesus as if he came to offer humanity “something that lies beyond himself” (24). It results in moral maxims and static ethical principles which have no basis in the identity of Jesus and therefore can be abstracted from his person and work. This is problematic, because it fails to account for the resurrection, ascension, and session of Jesus who is thereby alive and active in the world today. If Jesus is really present to humanity through the Word and by the Spirit, human behaviour ought to participate in his contemporary ministry. Holmes thus rejects the question, “What would Jesus do?” to ask instead, “What is Jesus doing?”
As far as I can discern, Holmes’s ethical account grows out of at least four key convictions. (1) The presence of Jesus Christ is the basis of Christian ethics. This basic insight is the kernel of Holmes’s essay, one that he unpacks meticulously and methodically throughout, with particular reference to the presence of Christ in his ongoing ministry of power, truth, and love. (2) The presence of Jesus Christ is determined by the being or identity of Christ. Christ is not other than what he does; he does not appear to us in one way while concealing another sort of identity behind his actions. He truly is in eternity who he appears to us in time, and he is present to us today as the One he truly is. (3) The presence of Jesus Christ is guaranteed by the resurrection. Apart from the resurrection, Christ’s actions would remain dead in the past. Because of the resurrection, Christ’s presence is an ongoing reality. (4) The presence of Jesus Christ means that human action does not need to (nor could it possibly) bring about a new reality that God desires. God’s will is already reality in Christ, and all human action can do is bear witness to and participate in God’s reality in Christ. (Here, Holmes is particularly close to Bonhoeffer.) The revelation of Jesus thus functions as a “reality-indication” (38, a term Holmes borrows from John Webster), a disclosure of the way things really are.
Holmes’s basic method is a seamless integration of biblical exegesis, theological exposition, and pastoral reflection. His main chapters are structured as follows: (1) Starting with a key text of scripture (in this case, a portion of John’s Gospel), he describes the nature of Jesus’ ministry of power, truth, or love in its historical particularity; (2) interacting with this picture, he develops the christological significance of Jesus’ economic ministry for his immanent being; (3) with this understanding of the being and identity of the Son, he describes how Christ is still present in ministering his own being as power, truth, or love; (4) finally, he reflects on how ethics is a participation in the contemporary ministry of Christ in the presence of his power, truth, or love. Holmes thus takes us from the gospel narratives about Jesus of Nazareth, to the identity of Jesus Christ as revealed in history, to a description of the eternal identity of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, to a description of the contemporary ministry of Jesus as ministering his own being to humanity by the Spirit, where we finally have the “presence of Christ” that forms the basis for ethical action. This summary probably obscures Holmes’s logic, which is really quite straightforward: the Jesus who is present today is the same Jesus narrated in the gospels, so by attending to who Jesus is shown to be in the New Testament witness, we come to know the one who is present and active in the world today.
He concludes his book with a chapter on his hermeneutical method. He argues that Holy Scripture is not a book of timeless truths waiting to be brought across the hermeneutical gap and applied to a new time and context. Rather, Scripture testifies to the living and active God, the God who is active precisely through the Word of Scripture insofar as he takes it up by his Spirit and uses it as his chosen instrument to testify to himself. The truth of Scripture thus cannot be divorced from the One who is the Truth, a Truth that is dynamic and alive. Scripture, in Holmes’s words, “construes ethical reality.” It testifies to the One who is, the One who is only as One who is present, the One whose presence implicates human beings in response. Scripture, in other words, points to Jesus Christ and says, “This is the way things are”—a message that cannot be heard and believed apart from a response.
Though Holmes’s account seems to remain rather abstract and theoretical, it fits with his initial intention, stated in the very first sentence of the book: “In this essay I present a descriptive account of the presence and ongoing ministry of Jesus Christ, specifically the character of his power, truth and love, and the import of this power, truth and love for ethics” (1). In this, he has succeeded. The three main chapters offer a robust “descriptive account” of the ongoing presence of Jesus, even if they are thin on ethical “application.” The application is thin precisely because of Holmes’s convictions about the nature of Scripture. Scripture cannot be “applied” because this implies a fundamental gap between the text and our world, as if we need to take something from the text and figure out how it works in the “real world” (by which we mean our contemporary context). Holmes insists that “talk of applying suggests that Scripture might well tell us how things are, but it is nonetheless we who are responsible for bringing what it discloses into being. . .” (146). For Holmes, Christ’s presence and ongoing ministering relativizes the “hermeneutical distance” between the Bible’s world and our own. The Bible is a testament to reality, and “reality . . . cannot be applied. It can only be heard and obeyed” (148).
This is not a book for those seeking an ethical guide to provide particular examples of what sorts of actions are morally right or wrong. Indeed, the standard question, “Is this right or wrong?” (with its exegetical corollary, “Does the Bible say that this is right or wrong?”) is, for Holmes, an inadequate model. It assumes ethics is about appealing to eternal moral laws and that the Bible contains statements of these moral laws, if only we have eyes to see them. All of this has no need of a living, an active, and, crucially, a present Jesus. Holmes has driven home the point, for me at least, that ethics must begin with the assumption that, however I may choose to act in any given situation, Jesus is already acting, and he does so in accordance with his identity and his will for humankind, an identity and a will that are attested in Scripture and activated by the Holy Spirit. In testifying to Jesus Christ, the Bible testifies to ethical reality, revealing the way things are in a way that implicates me. Ethics is not blind obedience to a static moral code but the dynamic life lived in accordance with who Jesus is and in participation with what he is doing.
That is a terrific review Joel. Thanks for taking the time to share it here. I still need to pick up a copy and read it soon (beyond the bit I’ve already read without owning it).
Thanks Rick. It really is worth the effort to read it—and it does take some effort!
Classic Holmes!
At the risk of sounding like I Need Practical Application Guy. Does the fact that “the Bible testifies to ethical reality, revealing the way things are in a way that implicates me” not inevitably lead to action or wisdom for action? I like this idea of not walking away from scripture with fixed ethical principles, but I nevertheless can’t help but thinking that the line of difference Holmes is drawing here is very fine. One way or another we are eventually interested in action, are we not?
Just trying to wrap my mind around the implications (I dare not say “application”) of what Chris writes here, as I have been since the heady days of Ethics class.
Marc, I do agree that in some respects the line of difference is quite fine, and yes, we are eventually interested in action, but this is different from saying that we are “ultimately” interested in action (which I realize you didn’t say). Holmes wants to explore how ethical action—in which, to be sure, we must eventually be interested—is a function of ethical reality. This doesn’t mean that, no matter how we get there, at least we did the right thing. In Holmes’s model, actions in and of themselves don’t have ethical weight. So it’s not just a matter of agreeing on what actions are indeed ethical (whether by interpreting a moral code or participating in an ethical reality), because ethical conclusions are secondary to discerning and participating in ethical reality.
I know that this can sound like a rhetorical distinction rather than an actual one, but I do think it’s an important difference. Think about Christians whose measure of faith consists strictly in adhering to a particular ethical standard. However they construe the relation between faith and action, practically speaking it is their actions that constitute their faith and not vice versa. Being “good” is how you be “Christian.” Of course, then evangelism becomes more about preaching a set of morals rather than Christ. It doesn’t take much imagination to find examples of this.
What Holmes’s book really does well is refocuses Christian ethics on the living and present person of Jesus. It is easier to abstract ethics from the person, because actions are easier to align to abstract principles than to a living person. There is no room for “ethical autopilot” in this model. It always entails a real and vibrant relationship with a living person. (There’s probably a potential analogy with marriage here.)
Thanks, Joel. That’s helpful–particularly the bit about actions as faith vs. Christ.
And thanks for the review!
Actually, I wouldn’t juxtapose “actions as faith vs. Christ”. Certainly there are those who make their actions the grounds of righteousness, but (following Bonhoeffer) I simply cannot see genuine actions as faith (something B. argues strongly for in his “Discipleship”) in opposition to Christ, but in flowing from life in Christ. Though I haven’t read all of Chris on this, I would be surprised if he juxtaposes them other than as grounds for righteousness. Perhaps I’m way off in this, but that is my 2 cents.
Rick, I think the point is not that “actions as faith” is necessarily in opposition to Christ, but that we are in trouble when “actions as faith” can be fully abstracted from the person of Christ. Genuine “actions as faith” are, as you say, actions “flowing from life in Christ.” I was just trying to point out potential pitfalls when ethics is divorced from the living person of Jesus. I wasn’t trying to imply that concrete manifestations of faith (i.e., actions) are somehow inherently opposed to Jesus himself.
Joel,
I was actually blaming Marc for that one. 😉 I was trying to offer clarification (not that there probably really needed to be any).
Well, if you were just blaming Marc, then all’s well! 🙂
I haven’t read Chris Holmes’ book, but this review reminds me of Holmes’ class on Christian ethics, and why I was often disappointed by it.
I do appreciate the idea of focusing upon “the person of Christ” and the idea of “ethics in the presence of Christ.” Being “good” is not just about “following rules” but being in good relationship with Him who is good.
However, it seems to me that there is an unhealthy criticism of “moral principles” reflected in what I remember of Holmes’ teaching.
To focus so much upon “the presence/person of Christ” without any practical regard for the 10 commandments, or the practical teaching of Christ, or the moral injunctions of the NT, etc… seems to demonstrate an over-reactionary approach, when regarding the topic of “Christian ethics.”
I do not see it as an unhealthy abstraction to reflect upon the “moral principles” of God – i.e.: the 2 great commandments, the 10 commandments, etc. I would argue that it is natural for humans to think in terms of moral principles (natural, in the good sense), and that this is part of being in the image of God, and that God Himself thinks and speaks in terms of moral principles.
There is more to knowing God than just “knowing moral principles” – to be sure. But God does reveal His will through moral principles – i.e.: His moral law.
To speak so critically about “moral principles,” as Holmes seems to do, makes me concerned about antinomian implications.
Chris, you raise some good points—some of which I also struggled with in his class and continued to struggle with as I read his book. I think you might find that some of your reservations with his teaching are addressed in this book, but many would probably remain.
I think the next logical step in such a conversation as Holmes begins in his book would be to reconcile his ethical vision with your critique here. After all, most Christians still think of ethics in terms of biblical commandments, which are often construed in terms of moral principles. While I think there is some overlap between these concepts, I don’t think they’re fully interchangeable. A good place to start would be to define these terms more precisely.
We need to relate biblical commandments to the person of Jesus in a way that goes beyond, “because Jesus said so.” Not because Jesus’ word isn’t enough, mind you, but because this connection is so tenuous that Jesus himself becomes expendable after his commands have been learned. Arguably Holmes overstates his case in some respects, and his polemic against moral principles might leave one wondering if there is any place at all for them in Christian faith. I think the biggest problem people have with his view of ethics is that it seems to lack concrete ethical content. Part of that stems from his two-fold conviction that ethics must be concrete with respect to reality rather than issues and that this ethical reality is disclosed in the person of Jesus. Does this offer any real help in the ethical moment of decision? If yes, then how so? Can we still speak in general yet concrete terms about actions and attitudes that ought to characterize Christians?
However we answer these questions, I do think that the presence of the person of Jesus is the appropriate point of departure for Christian ethics. Whether we can traverse from this starting point to the language of “moral principles” is another question. I would be inclined to say that we can, but only in a qualified sense.
“this connection is so tenuous that Jesus himself becomes expendable after his commands have been learned.”
This is a particularly helpful sentence, Joel. Thanks. I like it a lot.
I think this whole things makes sense to me, but in a frustratingly vague way. I think this is probably because the “principles” model and the need for concrete examples of application are so deeply ingrained in me.
That’s a wonderfully worded reply, Joel (and you beat me to it). I find the language of “command” rather than “instruction” to be less helpful with regard to the 10 “words” (debarim). Not that there is no “command” sense to them, but that this notion (in contemporary English) is less helpful than instruction (IMO). Also, this “word” from the LORD is always encountered as a living word and not simply “principle.” That is where I agree with Chris Holmes.
However, that being said, I disagree (at a certain level) with the rejection of “application”. I believe I understand his reasoning for rejecting such (including in his preaching), but I find that he tosses out the concrete word of the Lord spoken to our situation through the words of that Word we encounter in Scripture by the Spirit. I believe there is plenty of room for ethical “application” as it is acted upon in union with Christ, empowered by God’s Spirit. The grounds are Christ. It is the voice of the Father, through the person and work of Christ Jesus, by the illuminating and empowering work of the Spirit in us that we live as God’s own children.