Principles and History

Listening to a lecture on Oliver O'Donovan, I was reminded of one of O'Donovan's beliefs about ethics. He grounds ethics in creation, specifically in the creation the resurrection affirms and transforms. This takes history very seriously, as history presupposes creation, otherwise it is not history. So, a command from Jesus in history has to be considered against the backdrop of creation and how that command fits into creation so that we can understand the command. Once we understand the theology behind the command, we can decipher our own historical contexts to act faithfully to Jesus' creation.

At first this line of thinking almost sounds like principles: We excavate the principle from the text and apply it. However, principles are often conceived as timeless, which history isn't. It's precisely because history moves that principles don't (always? often?) work. Because there is stability in creation, we should expect some elements of ethics grounded in creation to hold fast for centuries. However, because there is sin, we should also expect some commands to change in a redeemed history. There should be change as there is growth. In reading Scripture ethically, we are not excavating and attempting to go behind the text, but to read the universe the text describes in Christ. I think I'm more comfortable with that than timeless-principles.

(Of course, this means that no question of morality is automatically and necessarily always closed. It does mean, however, that we, as Christians, ought always return to Scripture for our guidance, rather than dismiss it. It also means that if the Bible keeps uniform prescription on certain actions throughout its narrative, that gives a decent clue to the stability of a command.)