I enjoyed the review without seeing the movie. I hope I did not get it backwards here.
One puzzle comes to me in this section:
In the same way, moral complexity is not a step on the path to moral relativism. As the Wizard says in act 2 of Wicked, “There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities | So we act as though they don't exist.”
To acknowledge complexity is not to abandon morality; it’s a willingness to deal with moral reality.
I do think some appeal to moral complexity can be a step on the path to moral relativism. I think that happened maybe 100 years ago in some of the mainline church. I found Machen's commentary on Christianity and Liberalism to be a helpful explanation of the story.
But what I think I am learning from Joel is it is not always a step on the path to moral relativism. Moral complexity does not have to lead in that direction of relativism.
>I do think some appeal to moral complexity can be a step on the path to moral relativism.
Yes. It doesn't mean moral complexity is wrong, but it can easily be a tool for sophistry. Long before Machen was writing, I think something like this on the part of the Jesuits is what Pascal was criticizing in his "Provincial Letters". Which are on my reading list, but I haven't gotten to, so anyone who knows the story of Jesuit casuistry better can correct me where I'm wrong.
Maybe it's intellectually arrogant of me to propose this, but I harbor some doubts that the average Joe is able to keep moral complexity and moral absolutism in his head simultaneously.
I'm reminded of this rather good essay by Tom Owens, which wrestles with holding to absolute legalistic rules -- which may contain some good among the evil:
One of the appeals of Gothard’s cult is he gave specific advice. This is pretty common in fundamentalist churches too, where the pastors often speak extemporaneously about what people should specifically do. It’s less common in more theologically robust churches because pastors restrict themselves to Scripture. That’s generally a good thing, but it can leave things too vague for people looking for specific answers. But often it is those most cautious from wisdom about giving advice who most need to give it.
Thanks, Russ! I think it’s a matter of whether it’s moral skepticism about a biblical truth (moral simplicity), versus on the other hand, recognizing real moral complexity where it arises.
In other words, it matters whether the moral complexity is really there. And especially for our judgments about other people, I think it always is. People who end up doing evil have complex motivations, and they are made in the image of God. In society’s application of moral categories often papers over complexities.
Thanks for the article, I really enjoyed it. I enjoy people who challenge my thought process and get me to look at theology from different angles. I have wandered from small faith to strict fundamentalism to mainstream evangelicalism to deconstruction to joining my childhood Church (small country Mennonite). I hold fast to the basic gospel teachings and appreciate different thoughts/directions on how to apply them. Moral ambiguities!
I really enjoyed this analysis. I watched Wicked in college soon after becoming a Christian. It immediately became my favorite musical.
I’ve since learned that many Christians fear moral ambiguity and conflate moral complexity with moral relativism. Which surprised me, because the Bible and everyday life are chock-full of complexity and ambiguity! Though I can certainly empathize with wanting reality to be simpler.
Maybe because I met him late, I often experience faith as a call to keep in step with a strange God in a strange world. Stories like Wicked, which I find full of both empathy and moral clarity, make the journey feel less lonely.
I enjoyed the review without seeing the movie. I hope I did not get it backwards here.
One puzzle comes to me in this section:
In the same way, moral complexity is not a step on the path to moral relativism. As the Wizard says in act 2 of Wicked, “There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities | So we act as though they don't exist.”
To acknowledge complexity is not to abandon morality; it’s a willingness to deal with moral reality.
I do think some appeal to moral complexity can be a step on the path to moral relativism. I think that happened maybe 100 years ago in some of the mainline church. I found Machen's commentary on Christianity and Liberalism to be a helpful explanation of the story.
But what I think I am learning from Joel is it is not always a step on the path to moral relativism. Moral complexity does not have to lead in that direction of relativism.
>I do think some appeal to moral complexity can be a step on the path to moral relativism.
Yes. It doesn't mean moral complexity is wrong, but it can easily be a tool for sophistry. Long before Machen was writing, I think something like this on the part of the Jesuits is what Pascal was criticizing in his "Provincial Letters". Which are on my reading list, but I haven't gotten to, so anyone who knows the story of Jesuit casuistry better can correct me where I'm wrong.
Maybe it's intellectually arrogant of me to propose this, but I harbor some doubts that the average Joe is able to keep moral complexity and moral absolutism in his head simultaneously.
I'm reminded of this rather good essay by Tom Owens, which wrestles with holding to absolute legalistic rules -- which may contain some good among the evil:
https://tomowens.substack.com/p/the-duggars-lust-and-legalism
Let me pull this quote from it specifically:
>
One of the appeals of Gothard’s cult is he gave specific advice. This is pretty common in fundamentalist churches too, where the pastors often speak extemporaneously about what people should specifically do. It’s less common in more theologically robust churches because pastors restrict themselves to Scripture. That’s generally a good thing, but it can leave things too vague for people looking for specific answers. But often it is those most cautious from wisdom about giving advice who most need to give it.
>
Thanks, Russ! I think it’s a matter of whether it’s moral skepticism about a biblical truth (moral simplicity), versus on the other hand, recognizing real moral complexity where it arises.
In other words, it matters whether the moral complexity is really there. And especially for our judgments about other people, I think it always is. People who end up doing evil have complex motivations, and they are made in the image of God. In society’s application of moral categories often papers over complexities.
Thanks for the article, I really enjoyed it. I enjoy people who challenge my thought process and get me to look at theology from different angles. I have wandered from small faith to strict fundamentalism to mainstream evangelicalism to deconstruction to joining my childhood Church (small country Mennonite). I hold fast to the basic gospel teachings and appreciate different thoughts/directions on how to apply them. Moral ambiguities!
I loved this take. As a Christian I certainly identified with Elphaba. I put some thoughts in a highlight which I may eventually try to write about —> https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE4Mzc0OTU1NzU3MTI4NzY5?igsh=MXAzMzgwem1iMm4zNQ==
I really enjoyed this analysis. I watched Wicked in college soon after becoming a Christian. It immediately became my favorite musical.
I’ve since learned that many Christians fear moral ambiguity and conflate moral complexity with moral relativism. Which surprised me, because the Bible and everyday life are chock-full of complexity and ambiguity! Though I can certainly empathize with wanting reality to be simpler.
Maybe because I met him late, I often experience faith as a call to keep in step with a strange God in a strange world. Stories like Wicked, which I find full of both empathy and moral clarity, make the journey feel less lonely.