Response

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-116
Author(s):  
Nathan Myrick

This chapter interweaves theological reflections from the traditions of American theological ethics and music philosophy with the author’s fieldwork, showing how an ethic of responsiveness makes claims on participants in the activity of musical worship. It argues that caring responsibilities that arise from such musical activity will require attentiveness to both relationships and justice. The chapter claims that this kind of care oriented toward restorative justice is a Christian response to biblical depictions of “the greatest commandment[s].” The chapter shows examples of how this just and caring responsiveness in musical worship may be enacted, concluding with an affirmation of the centrality of relationships for human beings.

Author(s):  
Nathan Myrick

Musical activity is one of the most ubiquitous and highly valued forms of social interaction in North America—from sporting events to political rallies, concerts to churches. Its use as an affective agent for political and religious programs suggests that it has ethical significance, but it is one of the most undertheorized aspects of both theological ethics and music scholarship. Music for Others: Care, Justice, and Relational Ethics in Christian Music fills part of this scholarly gap by focusing on the religious aspects of musical activity, particularly on the practices of Christian communities. It is based on ethnomusicological fieldwork at three Protestant churches and interviews with a group of seminary students, combined with theories of discourse, formation, response, and care ethics oriented toward restorative justice. The book argues that relationships are ontological for both human beings and musical activity. It further argues that musical meaning and emotion converge in human bodies such that music participates in personal and communal identity construction in affective ways—yet these constructions are not always just. Thus, Music for Others argues that music is ethical when it preserves people in and restores people to just relationships with each other, and thereby with God.


Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Does theological ethics articulate moral norms with the assistance of moral philosophy? Or does it leave that task to moral philosophy alone while it describes a distinctively Christian way of acting or form of life? These questions lie at the heart of theological ethics as a discipline. Karl Barth’s theological ethics makes a strong case for the first alternative. This book follows Barth’s efforts to present God’s grace as a moral norm in his treatments of divine commands, moral reasoning, responsibility, and agency. It shows how Barth’s conviction that grace is the norm of human action generates problems for his ethics at nearly every turn, as it involves a moral good that confronts human beings from outside rather than perfecting them as the kind of creature they are. Yet it defends Barth’s insistence on the right of theology to articulate moral norms, and it shows how Barth may lead theological ethics to exercise that right in a more compelling way than he did.


2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Golser

Storicamente si può affermare che la Santa Sede è stata all’avanguardia nell’attenzione posta ai problemi ecologici, perché le sue prime prese di posizione risalgono all’inizio degli anni ‘70. Un’etica teologica cattolica si è sviluppata dalla metà degli anni ’80, dopo che le scienze bibliche hanno dovuto confutare l’accusa che l’antropocentrismo della Bibbia sia stata una delle cause dello sfruttamento della terra. Le ragioni storiche di un atteggiamento sbagliato verso la natura sono da vedere piuttosto nel pensiero filosofico moderno che si è sviluppato spesso in contrapposizione al cristianesimo, mentre la Bibbia e la teologia hanno in verità una visione teocentrica della creazione. I tentativi filosofici, che al posto dell’uomo vogliono mettere al centro della riflessione etica la natura stessa o la vita o anche la possibilità di soffrire, non hanno consistenza perché soltanto la persona umana come essere consapevole e libero può assumersi una responsabilità etica. Bisogna però tener conto di tutte le altre creature che in quanto create hanno una loro dignità propria. Essere creati significa essere relazionati a Dio; la fede in Dio Creatore comporta così un l’antropocentrismo relazionale. Da questi presupposti può essere sviluppata un’etica ecologica teologica che ha due percorsi, uno che insiste sul cambiamento necessario degli atteggiamenti di fondo verso la natura (le virtù ecologiche), ed uno che da determinati principi e da esperienze consolidate formula delle norme concrete per l’agire ecologico responsabile. ---------- Historically, one can say that the Holy See has been a pioneer for the attention paid to ecological issues, as it started taking a stance on the topic already in the early ‘70s of XX century. A catholic theological ethics was developed in the mid-‘80s, after the biblical sciences had to refuse the accusation that made biblical anthropocentrism one of the main causes of the exploitation of the earth. The historical reasons for a wrong attitude toward nature are to be found instead in the contemporary philosophical thinking that often developed against Christianity, while theology and the Bible promote a theocentric vision of creation. The philosophical attempts that place nature or life, or even the chance to suffer in lieu of man at the center of the ethical way of thinking, have no grounds because only human beings, self-aware and free, can take ethical responsibility. One needs to consider all creatures that, being created, have a dignity of their own. Being created means having a relation with God. Hence, the faith in the Creator involves a relational anthropocentrism. Departing from such assumptions, a theological environmental ethics can be developed along two paths, one insisting on the necessary change of the basic stance toward nature (i.e. ecological virtues), the other starting from recognized principles and experiences and postulating actual rules for responsible ecological behavior.


2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manitza Kotze

The recent advances made by biotechnology have been swift and sundry. Technological developments seem to happen sooner than they can be ethically reflected upon. One such trend is the endeavours launched to try and enhance human beings and what it means to be human with movements such as transhumanism, advocating strongly that we should overcome our natural limitations by any means available. With both critics and advocates utilising the expression ‘playing God’, the question of human enhancement is one in which the interplay between church and society comes compellingly to the fore. In this contribution, I wish to examine the bioethical challenges that technologies such as genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology raise, specifically from a theological perspective on human enhancement and indicating some paths that future research might take. Christian anthropological views on what it means to be human, especially to be created imago Dei [to the image of God] will provide the doctrinal and theological support to this contemplation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 108-125
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

When we claim that the command of God as a moral norm is rationally intelligible, we mean that it is in principle knowable, that we can reason about it, and that we can hold one another accountable to it. Barth’s theological ethics accommodates all three of these requisites. He holds that although we do not strictly know the specific action God will command, we have an approximate knowledge of it, and that in our asking it of God we stand in the space where it can be heard. He also holds that although our moral reasoning does not give us a definitive answer to what God requires and that we must bring our reasons before God’s ultimate verdict on them, the consideration of reasons for and against a proposed action or course of action is essential to hearing God’s command. Finally, he holds that human beings are bound to one another in relations of mutual speaking and hearing God’s commands, and these relations are at least implicitly relations of mutual accountability for what we hear as God’s command.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Brewbaker

Theological explorations of law have sometimes followed a “prophetic” model in which scripture or theological ethics serves as the primary norm for human law. After all, if God has spoken his Law into the world, especially a world beset by sin and oppression, should not human law answer to that Law? Moreover, is not law more authoritative when it is “found” or “discovered” within the framework of divine revelation than when it is “made” autonomously by fallen human beings?


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 58-64
Author(s):  
Sage Streight

This paper looks at the traditionally retributive paradigm that is used in Western educational systems to control misbehaviour, issues of injustice, and violence in schools. The paper first talks about the ineffectiveness of this paradigm in creating communities of care and safer schools. The paper then offers that restorative justice (RJ) practices are more effective at creating communities of care and making schools safer. In fact, many schools in North America have been recognizing this and thus implementing RJ practices. The paper looks in depth as to what RJ is and how it is relevant to and works within the school context. This is done to show that RJ changes how individuals view harm. The traditional retributive paradigm views harm as an act of injustice against the state/law, whereas RJ views harm as harm against human beings. This means that RJ fosters understanding, accountability, empathy, connection, and learning positive reconciliation skills that can both be reactive and preventive ways to address harm in schools. Through all these things RJ looks to address the root causes of harm and attend to unmet needs that result from a specific harmful action.             These findings are important in the paper as they provide an understanding as to why RJ is then relevant in schools. The paper goes on to argue that RJ is relevant in schools because schools are tasked with socializing children, provide behaviour management, and are currently places where violence frequently occurs. These three factors are extremely important in shaping how individuals and communities operate. Because of this, RJ is argued to be necessary and relevant in order to ensure positive and constructive measures. Next, the paper looks at what circles are and how using circles as an RJ practice in schools can create constructive dialogue that leads to understanding that can reduce incidents of harm and injustice and help to develop communities of care. A study by Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, & Espelage (2016) is presented to support these findings.             Furthermore, the paper presents how circles could realistically and effectively be implemented in schools according to Braithwaite (2001). Circles need to be implemented on a school wide level, accessible to everyone, and with the hope that they become an everyday practice for individuals to use to resolve issues of harm and injustice. The paper concludes by reiterating that using circles as an RJ practice creates broader participation in schools and fosters a collective value and stake in what happens within a school. This is done through the intentional dialogue of circles, which is proven to foster community, understanding, and needs being met. Ultimately, this makes schools operate in a more responsible way where individuals look out for how their actions are affecting those around them, ultimately making them more conscious citizens and the school a safer place.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Podlipniak

Creativity is defined as the ability to generate something new and valuable. From a biological point of view this can be seen as an adaptation in response to environmental challenges. Although music is such a diverse phenomenon, all people possess a set of abilities that are claimed to be the products of biological evolution, which allow us to produce and listen to music according to both universal and culture-specific rules. On the one hand, musical creativity is restricted by the tacit rules that reflect the developmental interplay between genetic, epigenetic and cultural information. On the other hand, musical innovations seem to be desirable elements present in every musical culture which suggests some biological importance. If our musical activity is driven by biological needs, then it is important for us to understand the function of musical creativity in satisfying those needs, and also how human beings have become so creative in the domain of music. The aim of this paper is to propose that musical creativity has become an indispensable part of the gene-culture coevolution of our musicality. It is suggested that the two main forces of canalization and plasticity have been crucial in this process. Canalization is an evolutionary process in which phenotypes take relatively constant forms regardless of environmental and genetic perturbations. Plasticity is defined as the ability of a phenotype to generate an adaptive response to environmental challenges. It is proposed that human musicality is composed of evolutionary innovations generated by the gradual canalization of developmental pathways leading to musical behavior. Within this process, the unstable cultural environment serves as the selective pressure for musical creativity. It is hypothesized that the connections between cortical and subcortical areas, which constitute cortico-subcortical circuits involved in music processing, are the products of canalization, whereas plasticity is achieved by the means of neurological variability. This variability is present both at the level of an individual structure’s enlargement in response to practicing (e.g., the planum temporale) and within the involvement of neurological structures that are not music-specific (e.g., the default mode network) in music processing.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Barth’s theological ethics is a version of divine command ethics. However, it is a highly unusual version. Its premise is that the Word of God—the revelation and work of God’s grace to human beings in Jesus Christ—is also the command of God, that gospel is also law. What God commands, therefore, is that human beings confirm in their conduct what they already are by virtue of God’s grace to them. Human beings confirm grace in their conduct by performing actions that correspond to grace, so that the moral life is lived as a human analogy to divine grace. The problem with Barth’s divine command ethics is that the claim that grace is the norm of human action fails to do justice to human beings as creatures. For Barth, God’s resolution from eternity to be gracious to human beings and God’s realization of this eternal resolution in time determines human beings as creatures, not just as those who have fallen into sin. It follows that the human creature exists for the actualization of grace, not grace for the perfection of the creature.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174-188
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

“The task of theological ethics,” Barth asserts, “is to understand the Word of God as the command of God.”1 The Word of God is the revelation and work of God’s grace to human beings in Jesus Christ, and the command of God is the summons, direction, and empowerment of human beings to be in their conduct what they are by God’s grace. In Jesus Christ, God acts for human beings and in their place. Human beings confirm God’s grace, so understood, in their actions that directly or indirectly correspond to it. The action God commands is thus a likeness to God’s action. Ethics takes form as an analogy of grace....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document