On Pragmatism


   While eating supper, Jesus had the talk with Matthew in which he explained that the morality of any act is determined by the individual's motive. Jesus' morality was always positive. The golden rule as restated by Jesus demands active social contact; the older negative rule could be obeyed in isolation. Jesus stripped morality of all rules and ceremonies and elevated it to majestic levels of spiritual thinking and truly righteous living. (1585)

   By taking the pragmatic pathway, some Urantians appear to have stripped this statement by Jesus to the minimal level of, "
The morality of any act is determined by the motive." This resultant is then taken as divine authority for an "end justifies the means" attitude which sanctions utilizing immoral or unlawful means for the attainment of what are claimed to be moral ends.

   Surely this kind of approach is a debasement of Jesus' restatement of the golden rule in which he elevated morality concepts to "majestic levels of spiritual thinking and truly righteous living." And is it not  also contrary to teachings such as  found in our "Favorite Places" quotation requiring "selective discrimination in the choice of superior ends as well as in
the selection of moral means to attain these ends?"

   For two millennia, most Christians have self-righteously set aside Jesus' teachings from the Sermon on the Mount as being impractical. Instead, they have turned to Paul's Christology which virtually ignores Jesus' life and teachings and, in its place, substitutes his death as a sacrificial means of freeing them from responsibility for their actions.

   And now, despite its two thousand pages of contrary teaching, we find readers of the Urantia  Papers following the pragmatism of Paul with the justification that "it is the real world that we have to live in."

   Did Jesus not live in a "real" world? He most certainly did--and he accepted the consequences of doing so. I would surely hate to have to stand in front of Michael and explain why I did things my way rather than  his way because it was a "real" world that I had to live in--thereby implying that, as Jesus of Nazareth, he did not.

   But if knowingly and willfully, I had gone my own way rather than the way of Jesus, can I really be sure that I would get the opportunity to stand in front of Michael to offer my explanations?

   Quotes that come to mind are, "Our relationship to Jesus takes precedence to all other human relationships." And, "You cannot yield the fruits of loving service except you abide in me."

   If our relationship to Jesus must take precedence over all else, and if "no abiding" means "no fruits" and "no fruits" means "no soul growth," then do we not run the risk, perhaps certainty, of soul death?

   Or is there an "out" in the statement about the faintest flicker of faith always giving us another chance? Probably not, for if we read on we come to, "But you who have been called out of darkness into the light are expected to believe with a whole heart; your faith shall dominate the combined attitudes of body, mind, and spirit." (1733)

   Obviously Jesus did not live in any kind of "real" world in which, for him, the end would justify the use of immoral means. Always it was the will of the Father that had first priority--with the result that Jesus always appears to have been forced to take the hard way. No miracles, no walking on the water, no reprieve from the cross.

   The way of Jesus was the way of the cross. Amazingly he went to his death with supreme joy in his heart, even though experiencing outward sorrow. (1944)

   Jesus' human heart had longed to find some legitimate avenue of escape from the terrible plight of suffering and sorrow confronting him. There were a million and one ways by which Jesus could have escaped the cross, but none fell within the requirement of the Father that the termination of his bestowal on this planet should be "in the natural course of events."

   In the real world of Jesus' day, anyone who forsook the animal component of human make up in order to live solely "according to the spirit," was treading a dangerous path. It is this same pathway that we are offered in the Urantia Papers. We are to forsake our animal nature, the same nature that figures that the pragmatic end justifies an immoral means--which is, in reality, the law of the jungle. Instead, we are to take on board,  the mind and the nature of Jesus.

   Embracing "the end justifies the means" concept appears to be a dangerous ploy.
I suppose its proponents could always try a plea of ignorance. What else is there?

Home Page    Previous Page    Next Page