Stentorian Baboons

 

Stentorian Baboons

Peter Schultz

 

                  Here’s a thought: Christianity originally, or Jesus, were not about morality or moral codes. Moreover, more radically, Christianity or Jesus rejected moralizing in favor of something else.

 

                  Consider, briefly, by way of example, Augustine, one of the earliest and most thoughtful Christians. In his Confessions, Augustine presents himself in all of his immorality. Eventually, he turned away from his immorality, but his turn was not motivated by morality. It was motivated by beauty, by the beatitudes, by a spirituality which included his love for his mother and for God. In other words, morality or moralizing did not “save” Augustine or lead to his “redemption.” It was his spirituality, a spirituality that transcended morality. Put differently, unlike many these days, Augustine was not saved or redeemed by religion, which may be described as formalized morality. It was not the Bible that saved or redeemed Augustine.  

 

                  Think about this politically. Over and over, politicians are heard to say that what America needs is moral reform. Some moral reforms are favored by conservatives, while other such reforms are favored by liberals. But apparently, there is a consensus that what is needed is moral reform. And, hence, we find ourselves in the midst of “culture wars,” where battles are waged over which moral codes are or should be deemed fundamental. Our most important political battles and events are understood as moral fables, as “the good guys” versus “the bad guys,” with disagreements of course over who are and who aren’t “the good guys. “

 

                  What if, however, moral reforms are not what we need? That is, what if, like Augustine, our political “redemption” or improvement depends, not upon morality, but upon something else altogether, something like a new way of thinking about and of living in the world? A new way of understanding the human condition, of humanity, a way that sees humans not as power-seekers but as adventurers, not as acquisitive beings but as inquisitive beings, not as warriors but as lovers, as beings who are best or better when they “make love, not war.” And what if our moral reformers, our moralizers, our politicians merely constitute “a roadblock of stentorian baboons,” standing in the way of redemption or some improvement?