It seems odd to chastise people who have kept the moral core of Christianity while discarding what they can no longer affirm about metaphysics. Why is that not enough? History shows us that millions who affirm the creeds live lives of cruelty, indifference, or hypocrisy. By contrast, many who reject “ontology” are nonetheless deeply faithful to the practical heart of the Gospel: defending the vulnerable, speaking truth to power, caring for creation.
You say morality without metaphysics is “sentimental,” but morality is also embodied. It is enacted in what people do, how they treat their neighbor, how they respond to suffering. That lived reality is more consequential than whether someone’s metaphysical framework passes your test.
Yes, values need grounding. But grounding does not only flow from abstract ontology—it can flow from shared human experience, empathy, historical memory, even the sheer recognition of suffering. To suggest that only Judeo-Christian metaphysics can sustain moral realism is to overlook the countless moral traditions—Confucian, Buddhist, Indigenous, Enlightenment humanist—that have produced coherent, demanding, and enduring visions of the good.
In the end, someone who lives with compassion and justice but doubts the metaphysical claims of Christianity is not a nihilist. They are not “performing.” They are living out convictions in a costly way, which is more than can be said for many who can recite “Thus saith the Lord” without lifting a finger for the oppressed.
It might be helpful to clarify what my post is saying. Again, people tend to react to what they think I am saying versus what I am actually saying. I really do wish people would read more carefully and respond to what I'm saying.
To wit.
I am NOT talking about anyone living in a loving and beautiful way.
What I am talking about is PROPHETIC SPEECH. My point is that prophetic speech demands moral realism that, of necessity, traffics in ontology.
Also, the list you give is illuminating. For example, "Indigenous." Which of the "indigenous" slave-holding cultures would you like to display for us a beautiful vision of the good? Or are you picking and choosing which "indigenous" culture is good versus bad based upon implicit moral commitments you've smuggled in from the Judeo-Christian tradition? What about the Confucian and Buddhist views that justified Japanese imperialism? Same goes for the smuggle operation that is "Enlightenment humanism." In short, your list is implicitly trading on Judeo-Christian values. You're asking us to pick and choose between indigenous, eastern, and humanistic visions that align with Judeo-Christian values. And my question for you is: Why this particular choice of yours? How do you justify it over, say, a fascist moral vision? Basically, take up the challenge of the post. Show me.
And again, this has nothing to do with people being good. Atheists can be, and are, good people. Better, often, than Christians. That is not my point. I'm talking about the good in itself and how prophetic speech cannot be sentimental.
Richard, I think history complicates your claim. If ontology alone secured prophetic truth, then Christians who shared the same metaphysical foundation wouldn’t have come to opposite conclusions on slavery, patriarchy, just war, or conquest. Ontology has been used to liberate, but also to justify oppression. What gives prophetic speech its force is not abstraction but its grounding in lived suffering, moral imagination, and the courage to confront power. In that sense, prophecy has always been embodied and costly. That dimension can’t be reduced to ontology.
Not trying to be reductionist at all. Just that, if you look at this historically, prophets have justified and sustained their costly and embodied commitments because they believed they were speaking to ontological truths that were obligating for those they were speaking against. Otherwise, why not live and let live? Why are prophets so meddlesome?
Of course people disagree about the content of the ontological ground, that is EXACTLY what prophetic criticism is about! Sorting the voice of God from the idols. I'm not suggesting that the content of the ontological ground isn't contested, simply that this is PRECISELY WHERE THE CONTEST MUST HAPPEN!
Richard, I hear your point, but I wonder: how can we be sure every prophetic voice was speaking ontologically? When Amos cried out “let justice roll down,” or when Douglass denounced slavery, the power came from naming lived reality and suffering. Sometimes ontology was present, but often prophecy drew its strength from moral vision and witness, not metaphysical argument. Or are you saying prophecy can never arise from experience and history alone?
But can't you seen that when you name "moral vision and witness" you're making my case?
Listen, I agree with you, there was and is a prophetic power to the lived experience of suffering and pain. I'm not denying what we might call the "humanism" at work in prophetic speech, the raw and direct appeal to human sympathy and compassion. But Douglass made ontological claims! Douglass appealed to the Higher Law! Claims that indicted the laws of the United States. Here's what he said about the Dred Scott decision:
"The Supreme Court of the United States is not the only power in this world. It is very great, but the Supreme Court of the Almighty is greater. Judge Taney can do many things, but he cannot perform impossibilities. He cannot bale out the ocean, annihilate this firm old earth, or pluck the silvery star of liberty from our Northern sky. He may decide, and decide again; but he cannot reverse the decision of the Most High. He cannot change the essential nature of things—making evil good, and good, evil."
There it is, in a nutshell. Ontology--"He cannot change the essential nature of things—making evil good, and good, evil"--as the source of moral indictment and protest.
Just like MLK described it sitting in a Birmingham jail.
Richard, I don’t deny that prophets often drew on ontological language. But to say prophecy is only ontological seems too narrow. The power of prophecy has almost always come from the way ontological claims and lived realities are braided together.
Take Amos: “Let justice roll down like waters.” The force of that cry is not just ontological—it comes from the concrete oppression Amos describes: the poor being sold for a pair of sandals, the needy being trampled in the gate. Ontology and lived suffering speak together.
Or take King: in Birmingham Jail he invoked natural law, yes. But the power of his prophecy came equally from exposing the humiliations of segregation—the “wait” that always meant “never,” the police dogs and fire hoses, the everyday cruelty faced by Black families. Ontology gave his words depth, but the lived reality gave them urgency.
Prophecy can certainly draw strength from ontology. But it can also draw equal strength from history, suffering, and moral imagination. When the two work together, the voice of prophecy is strongest. Reducing it to ontology alone risks flattening that richness.
Fascinating post and discussion. My only questions are to Dan’s last comment: “what makes it lived suffering? Which moral imagination? And what is justice?
In my reading of the scriptures, there is always a contest between enchanted idols that were evoked to Provide security, determine morality define justice and legitimate actions , and a wild and free God who demolished idolatry, revealed truth and intervened in power in the world. The Logos and barometer for love. The divine other.
To me the prophetic is found in mystical encounter with the divine source of truth which defines justice and moral imagination based on what it means to be human and imaged by God. This is ontological reliance essential to prophetic witness. Maybe there is a “prophetic light”, but it risks becoming sentimental and fails to push toward a deep solidarity with the world that is patterned in the incarnation and reflective of a oneness with the other. It also risks becoming a project of human sovereignty and that reflects to me more the problem with the enlightenment and the posture we have bestowed on ourselves as above all. And we know where that leads us. To more idolatry.
Heartistry, thank you for this thoughtful response. I don’t disagree that much of what we call prophetic arises from an encounter with the divine source of truth—an ontological grounding. What I’m questioning is whether all prophetic speech has to be tethered there. At times, prophecy can emerge from the raw witness of human suffering and the moral imagination it evokes. That doesn’t have to collapse into Enlightenment self-sovereignty; it can still carry divine weight even if it doesn’t explicitly anchor itself in metaphysical claims.
I guess what I’m resisting is reducing prophecy to a single root. Sometimes it’s mystical encounter. Sometimes it’s the eruption of pain and solidarity that compels society to see differently. And often, of course, it’s both.
Fair enough. I would then look at those non-ontologically rooted examples of prophetic voices and conscience as reflections of God in non-believers. But for us Christians, I think it is always rooted in ontology. I just published a post looking at one of James Baldwin's quotes as an example of this as he was not a Christian, but still voiced a prophetic witness.
I understand that it all gets relative when there is not truth to stand on. However, my question is... Can we not say that there is a God, Jesus being in union with God, that points the universal way of living? How much ontology does one need ? Deconstruction does not need to lead to being an atheist...at least for me, it led to rejecting the" inerrancy" that the fundamentalists taught, and being open to symbolism, allowing myself to see salvation, or the virgin birth, or the old testament in new ways...and allow for myths and stories that may lack the science we know today to teach truth.
Very fun and provocative, as your posts almost always are. But...
You issue this challenge: "Why this value and not another?" and "you can't be a prophet who no longer believes in the Lord. The moral layer must be connected to the ontological. Judeo-Christian metaphysics is integral to the Judeo-Christian moral vision. You can't have one without the other. And if you think you can, well, I’ve offered my challenge. Show us."
So you want social justice prophets to justify the positions they have taken in the moral layer, but doesn't the very same challenge hold for you in the ontological layer? Why this particular ontological belief instead of another? For example, why Christian ontology and not Buddhist ontology? Or why your ontological beliefs and not atheism's ontological beliefs perhaps based on scientism's or physicalism's or materialism's ontological framework? In the end, logic cannot close the case in the ontological layer any better than it can in the moral or political layers. So I would like to challenge you: "Show us" why your ontological beliefs are right and true, and the ontological beliefs of Buddhists or materialists or whomever else that differ from yours are not true.
In the end, we either have to remain in utter confusion, or we have to latch onto an ontological framework for motives that transcend reason and logic. For most people these days - you are right in this - if they are honest with themselves, their ontological beliefs are provisional, the best they can come up with given how difficult (really, impossible) 100% justifiable certainty is to arrive at.
And, to climb back onto my favorite hobby horse, God could make all this go away if God were not so hidden. If God revealed Godself straightforwardly to any and everyone who worried about what to believe in the ontological layer, all ontological and moral and political questions could easily be settled.
This is a good point. The ontological justification cannot be "shown." It has to be assumed axiomatically, as an object of "faith."
My goal in pointing this out is that it means everyone who wants to claim the role of prophet must be involved in metaphysics. Moral realism demands metaphysics. And secondly, if you want to espouse Judeo-Christian moral commitments, which just about everyone does, you have to adopt a Judeo-Christian metaphysics, at least axiomatically (e.g., human persons possess innate worth and dignity). Simply put, if you want the Judeo-Christian moral vision the metaphysics come along with it. It's a gestalt.
But, of course, as I pointed out in the post, you don't have to make this choice. You can be a fascist or sex trafficker. But if I wanted to say anything prophetically about those choices I'd need to muster something more than "I prefer you not do that." And what I'm curious about, in this post, is what you'd to point to beyond your preferences to justify your moral condemnation. That, and how what you are pointing toward is suspiciously similar to the Judeo-Christian gestalt.
I think you're right that moral realism demands metaphysics, and everyone has them whether they realize it or not. I do think, however, that you can have Judeo-Christian-adjacent moral visions in a couple of ways other than by adopting Judeo-Christian ontology (or ontologies). Many who adopt a Buddhist ontology end up with moral layers very similar to those who sincerely adopt Judeo-Christian ones (likewise for other of the world's religions). And Kantians who subscribe to Kant's categorical imperative can end up in a very similar place.
But it's true too that people who hold at least somewhat similar beliefs on the ontological layer can end up in very different places on the moral layer. For example, Christians like you (and me), versus Christian nationalists.
Yes, of course, people can subscribe to different ontologies and arrive at a similar prophetic location. But two thoughts about your examples.
First, Kant doesn't work as he, quite explicitly, was working as a Christian from within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Basically, Kant illustrates my point about smuggling in Judeo-Christian values.
As for Buddhism. Does Buddhism justify the rage and anger, the triggered and invested emotional reactivity, of the Hebrew prophets? I don't think so. My hunch is that Buddhist metaphysics takes a different sort of moral shape. A good shape, but a different shape. But I could be wrong about that.
Regardless, my point in the post isn't that alternative ontological/moral gestalts aren't possible. They are! My post is talking about ex-Christians who want to maintain the outcry of the Hebrew prophetic tradition while rejecting the ontological ground of that tradition. Of course ex-Christians can hop over to other faiths to adopt a wholly new ontology and moral worldview. More power to them! But they don't, generally, do that work. Sure, they might practice mindfulness or yoga, but those aren't moral commitments. Simply put, if you want to become a Buddhist prophet then BECOME A BUDDHIST! Stop being a post-modern nihilist.
I do think Buddhist ontology can lead to a "do unto the least of these" ethic similar to the kind of morality progressive Christians arrive at.
And yes, Kant came from, if not embraced, a Christian ontology. But his idea that we should practice a morality which, if everyone else also practiced it, would lead to the kind of reality one wishes existed., can show the way to an atheistic ontology that results in a moral layer very similar to a "do unto the least of these" morality. I can kind of visualize how that would work for me if I were an atheist (I'm just barely on the progressive Christian side of agnosticism). I long to live in a reality in which everyone has a good shot at flourishing, and anyone who is having a terrible struggle with that and wants help can get the help that turns them around. In other words, a reality in which we are all willing to share out of our abundance, serve one another when that's needed, and accept one another when we disagree. If everyone did those things, a beautiful reality would have a good chance of arising. I selfishly want to be in that reality. So just out of pure self-interest, coupled with an atheist ontology that sees the logic in Kant's categorical imperative, I could come to a "take care of the least of these" moral layer.
Of course it wouldn't work. I mean, I could see my way to adopting it, but not everyone else would, and as "The Parable of the Tribes" by Andrew Schmookler so beautifully illustrates, even if one player is willing to adopt coercion and force, a nonviolent, embrace-all ethic will fail to work on the group level. So it isn't any more practical when it comes out of an atheist/categorical imperative ontology than when it comes out of a progressive Christian or Buddhist ontology. But even if it can't work in our universe, it's still feels worth abiding by as best as one can. It might "work" individually (result in good persons) even if it can't work as a strategy for political and international accord.
A bare-bones Christian ontology includes (1) the sufficiency of the Living God’s revelation (and supply of real resources in Christ and the Spirit); (2) the insufficiency of some human reception of same. Number 2 is revealed at the end of this age.
Your challenge is useful. It allows me to stress this descriptive reality: (1) the Living God is (2) God has revealed this sufficiently to every human (3) those who have accepted God’s real resources in Christ and the Spirit will be known at the end of this age (4) until that day, live out this reality (albeit imperfectly).
There's little doubt to me that much of the "prophecy" on social media is merely performative. Prophecy must include action and sacrifice. Is it possible, then, that true prophecy, (ie. words and action) comes directly from the True, perhaps without verbally acknowledging specific ontological claims? I love the push back to experiencing the Real, but I'm unconvinced that doing so requires an explicitly Christian metaphysic. Since, in my opinion, the Judeo-Christian moral vision is rooted in the Real, it seems non-Christians can also access this moral vision by connecting directly to the Real. This, I know, tends toward something akin to Huxley's Perennial Tradition.
I think Christians' failure to live out the basic moral teachings of Jesus and Paul (and in the Trump age, to actively embrace their opposite) would be seen by many liberal, progressive and ex-Christians as significantly undermining the ontological claims of Christianity. If this stuff was true, how could someone be part of a church for 70+ years and be more of a d*ck at the end of it than at the beginning?
I wonder if you have read The Sovreignty of Good by Iris Murdoch? Even though it's 50 years old, it's a good attempt to provide an ontological basis for our ethical intuitions.
I have really enjoyed this series. You have been expressing these thoughts here and there before (books or here) but it seems like you are bundling these specific themes together and freshly articulating them.
This entry sounds a little bit like the structural proposals that an Atheist such as Sam Harris would make against Christianity. But this scenario begs a deeper question: “Why are there ‘Ex-Christian Prophets’ in the first place (?) - Those who apparently knew Jesus personally and intimately, who then with continuing compassion and fortitude, would still seek to make it a better world by caring for the poor, the disaffected and the abused. Why did they sever their branch from The Vine? What turned off their ontological grounding to strike passionately out on their own, intellectually and spiritually disconnecting themselves from ‘The Man from Galilee’, who said He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Is the suffering of the world just too much of a contradiction for them to maintain that center-point perspective? Have they allowed Science to build an impenetrable wall around their heart?
Patch Adam’s has said - “We can never get a re-creation of community and heal our society without giving our citizens a sense of belonging.”
Paradoxically, Post-Christian social compassion is an answer to ‘Theodicy’, where one imagines at the end of time, when we all stand before the throne, we can throw the judgement back at God, and state; “I did my part, where the hell were you?” Can we actually sustain and genuinely love others in balance, without a metaphysical grounding in the ultimate Goodness of God (?) If you don’t believe that you need forgiveness as a prerequisite to loving others, then potentially pride, rather than joy, is driving your engine. How long can you go under the weight of your limited power?
⸻
It seems odd to chastise people who have kept the moral core of Christianity while discarding what they can no longer affirm about metaphysics. Why is that not enough? History shows us that millions who affirm the creeds live lives of cruelty, indifference, or hypocrisy. By contrast, many who reject “ontology” are nonetheless deeply faithful to the practical heart of the Gospel: defending the vulnerable, speaking truth to power, caring for creation.
You say morality without metaphysics is “sentimental,” but morality is also embodied. It is enacted in what people do, how they treat their neighbor, how they respond to suffering. That lived reality is more consequential than whether someone’s metaphysical framework passes your test.
Yes, values need grounding. But grounding does not only flow from abstract ontology—it can flow from shared human experience, empathy, historical memory, even the sheer recognition of suffering. To suggest that only Judeo-Christian metaphysics can sustain moral realism is to overlook the countless moral traditions—Confucian, Buddhist, Indigenous, Enlightenment humanist—that have produced coherent, demanding, and enduring visions of the good.
In the end, someone who lives with compassion and justice but doubts the metaphysical claims of Christianity is not a nihilist. They are not “performing.” They are living out convictions in a costly way, which is more than can be said for many who can recite “Thus saith the Lord” without lifting a finger for the oppressed.
It might be helpful to clarify what my post is saying. Again, people tend to react to what they think I am saying versus what I am actually saying. I really do wish people would read more carefully and respond to what I'm saying.
To wit.
I am NOT talking about anyone living in a loving and beautiful way.
What I am talking about is PROPHETIC SPEECH. My point is that prophetic speech demands moral realism that, of necessity, traffics in ontology.
Also, the list you give is illuminating. For example, "Indigenous." Which of the "indigenous" slave-holding cultures would you like to display for us a beautiful vision of the good? Or are you picking and choosing which "indigenous" culture is good versus bad based upon implicit moral commitments you've smuggled in from the Judeo-Christian tradition? What about the Confucian and Buddhist views that justified Japanese imperialism? Same goes for the smuggle operation that is "Enlightenment humanism." In short, your list is implicitly trading on Judeo-Christian values. You're asking us to pick and choose between indigenous, eastern, and humanistic visions that align with Judeo-Christian values. And my question for you is: Why this particular choice of yours? How do you justify it over, say, a fascist moral vision? Basically, take up the challenge of the post. Show me.
And again, this has nothing to do with people being good. Atheists can be, and are, good people. Better, often, than Christians. That is not my point. I'm talking about the good in itself and how prophetic speech cannot be sentimental.
⸻
Richard, I think history complicates your claim. If ontology alone secured prophetic truth, then Christians who shared the same metaphysical foundation wouldn’t have come to opposite conclusions on slavery, patriarchy, just war, or conquest. Ontology has been used to liberate, but also to justify oppression. What gives prophetic speech its force is not abstraction but its grounding in lived suffering, moral imagination, and the courage to confront power. In that sense, prophecy has always been embodied and costly. That dimension can’t be reduced to ontology.
Not trying to be reductionist at all. Just that, if you look at this historically, prophets have justified and sustained their costly and embodied commitments because they believed they were speaking to ontological truths that were obligating for those they were speaking against. Otherwise, why not live and let live? Why are prophets so meddlesome?
Of course people disagree about the content of the ontological ground, that is EXACTLY what prophetic criticism is about! Sorting the voice of God from the idols. I'm not suggesting that the content of the ontological ground isn't contested, simply that this is PRECISELY WHERE THE CONTEST MUST HAPPEN!
Richard, I hear your point, but I wonder: how can we be sure every prophetic voice was speaking ontologically? When Amos cried out “let justice roll down,” or when Douglass denounced slavery, the power came from naming lived reality and suffering. Sometimes ontology was present, but often prophecy drew its strength from moral vision and witness, not metaphysical argument. Or are you saying prophecy can never arise from experience and history alone?
But can't you seen that when you name "moral vision and witness" you're making my case?
Listen, I agree with you, there was and is a prophetic power to the lived experience of suffering and pain. I'm not denying what we might call the "humanism" at work in prophetic speech, the raw and direct appeal to human sympathy and compassion. But Douglass made ontological claims! Douglass appealed to the Higher Law! Claims that indicted the laws of the United States. Here's what he said about the Dred Scott decision:
"The Supreme Court of the United States is not the only power in this world. It is very great, but the Supreme Court of the Almighty is greater. Judge Taney can do many things, but he cannot perform impossibilities. He cannot bale out the ocean, annihilate this firm old earth, or pluck the silvery star of liberty from our Northern sky. He may decide, and decide again; but he cannot reverse the decision of the Most High. He cannot change the essential nature of things—making evil good, and good, evil."
There it is, in a nutshell. Ontology--"He cannot change the essential nature of things—making evil good, and good, evil"--as the source of moral indictment and protest.
Just like MLK described it sitting in a Birmingham jail.
Richard, I don’t deny that prophets often drew on ontological language. But to say prophecy is only ontological seems too narrow. The power of prophecy has almost always come from the way ontological claims and lived realities are braided together.
Take Amos: “Let justice roll down like waters.” The force of that cry is not just ontological—it comes from the concrete oppression Amos describes: the poor being sold for a pair of sandals, the needy being trampled in the gate. Ontology and lived suffering speak together.
Or take King: in Birmingham Jail he invoked natural law, yes. But the power of his prophecy came equally from exposing the humiliations of segregation—the “wait” that always meant “never,” the police dogs and fire hoses, the everyday cruelty faced by Black families. Ontology gave his words depth, but the lived reality gave them urgency.
Prophecy can certainly draw strength from ontology. But it can also draw equal strength from history, suffering, and moral imagination. When the two work together, the voice of prophecy is strongest. Reducing it to ontology alone risks flattening that richness.
Fascinating post and discussion. My only questions are to Dan’s last comment: “what makes it lived suffering? Which moral imagination? And what is justice?
In my reading of the scriptures, there is always a contest between enchanted idols that were evoked to Provide security, determine morality define justice and legitimate actions , and a wild and free God who demolished idolatry, revealed truth and intervened in power in the world. The Logos and barometer for love. The divine other.
To me the prophetic is found in mystical encounter with the divine source of truth which defines justice and moral imagination based on what it means to be human and imaged by God. This is ontological reliance essential to prophetic witness. Maybe there is a “prophetic light”, but it risks becoming sentimental and fails to push toward a deep solidarity with the world that is patterned in the incarnation and reflective of a oneness with the other. It also risks becoming a project of human sovereignty and that reflects to me more the problem with the enlightenment and the posture we have bestowed on ourselves as above all. And we know where that leads us. To more idolatry.
Heartistry, thank you for this thoughtful response. I don’t disagree that much of what we call prophetic arises from an encounter with the divine source of truth—an ontological grounding. What I’m questioning is whether all prophetic speech has to be tethered there. At times, prophecy can emerge from the raw witness of human suffering and the moral imagination it evokes. That doesn’t have to collapse into Enlightenment self-sovereignty; it can still carry divine weight even if it doesn’t explicitly anchor itself in metaphysical claims.
I guess what I’m resisting is reducing prophecy to a single root. Sometimes it’s mystical encounter. Sometimes it’s the eruption of pain and solidarity that compels society to see differently. And often, of course, it’s both.
Fair enough. I would then look at those non-ontologically rooted examples of prophetic voices and conscience as reflections of God in non-believers. But for us Christians, I think it is always rooted in ontology. I just published a post looking at one of James Baldwin's quotes as an example of this as he was not a Christian, but still voiced a prophetic witness.
I understand that it all gets relative when there is not truth to stand on. However, my question is... Can we not say that there is a God, Jesus being in union with God, that points the universal way of living? How much ontology does one need ? Deconstruction does not need to lead to being an atheist...at least for me, it led to rejecting the" inerrancy" that the fundamentalists taught, and being open to symbolism, allowing myself to see salvation, or the virgin birth, or the old testament in new ways...and allow for myths and stories that may lack the science we know today to teach truth.
See my note above to J Kevan that states an ontology similar to yours. But adding an “eschatological humility” aspect.
Very fun and provocative, as your posts almost always are. But...
You issue this challenge: "Why this value and not another?" and "you can't be a prophet who no longer believes in the Lord. The moral layer must be connected to the ontological. Judeo-Christian metaphysics is integral to the Judeo-Christian moral vision. You can't have one without the other. And if you think you can, well, I’ve offered my challenge. Show us."
So you want social justice prophets to justify the positions they have taken in the moral layer, but doesn't the very same challenge hold for you in the ontological layer? Why this particular ontological belief instead of another? For example, why Christian ontology and not Buddhist ontology? Or why your ontological beliefs and not atheism's ontological beliefs perhaps based on scientism's or physicalism's or materialism's ontological framework? In the end, logic cannot close the case in the ontological layer any better than it can in the moral or political layers. So I would like to challenge you: "Show us" why your ontological beliefs are right and true, and the ontological beliefs of Buddhists or materialists or whomever else that differ from yours are not true.
In the end, we either have to remain in utter confusion, or we have to latch onto an ontological framework for motives that transcend reason and logic. For most people these days - you are right in this - if they are honest with themselves, their ontological beliefs are provisional, the best they can come up with given how difficult (really, impossible) 100% justifiable certainty is to arrive at.
And, to climb back onto my favorite hobby horse, God could make all this go away if God were not so hidden. If God revealed Godself straightforwardly to any and everyone who worried about what to believe in the ontological layer, all ontological and moral and political questions could easily be settled.
This is a good point. The ontological justification cannot be "shown." It has to be assumed axiomatically, as an object of "faith."
My goal in pointing this out is that it means everyone who wants to claim the role of prophet must be involved in metaphysics. Moral realism demands metaphysics. And secondly, if you want to espouse Judeo-Christian moral commitments, which just about everyone does, you have to adopt a Judeo-Christian metaphysics, at least axiomatically (e.g., human persons possess innate worth and dignity). Simply put, if you want the Judeo-Christian moral vision the metaphysics come along with it. It's a gestalt.
But, of course, as I pointed out in the post, you don't have to make this choice. You can be a fascist or sex trafficker. But if I wanted to say anything prophetically about those choices I'd need to muster something more than "I prefer you not do that." And what I'm curious about, in this post, is what you'd to point to beyond your preferences to justify your moral condemnation. That, and how what you are pointing toward is suspiciously similar to the Judeo-Christian gestalt.
I think you're right that moral realism demands metaphysics, and everyone has them whether they realize it or not. I do think, however, that you can have Judeo-Christian-adjacent moral visions in a couple of ways other than by adopting Judeo-Christian ontology (or ontologies). Many who adopt a Buddhist ontology end up with moral layers very similar to those who sincerely adopt Judeo-Christian ones (likewise for other of the world's religions). And Kantians who subscribe to Kant's categorical imperative can end up in a very similar place.
But it's true too that people who hold at least somewhat similar beliefs on the ontological layer can end up in very different places on the moral layer. For example, Christians like you (and me), versus Christian nationalists.
Yes, of course, people can subscribe to different ontologies and arrive at a similar prophetic location. But two thoughts about your examples.
First, Kant doesn't work as he, quite explicitly, was working as a Christian from within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Basically, Kant illustrates my point about smuggling in Judeo-Christian values.
As for Buddhism. Does Buddhism justify the rage and anger, the triggered and invested emotional reactivity, of the Hebrew prophets? I don't think so. My hunch is that Buddhist metaphysics takes a different sort of moral shape. A good shape, but a different shape. But I could be wrong about that.
Regardless, my point in the post isn't that alternative ontological/moral gestalts aren't possible. They are! My post is talking about ex-Christians who want to maintain the outcry of the Hebrew prophetic tradition while rejecting the ontological ground of that tradition. Of course ex-Christians can hop over to other faiths to adopt a wholly new ontology and moral worldview. More power to them! But they don't, generally, do that work. Sure, they might practice mindfulness or yoga, but those aren't moral commitments. Simply put, if you want to become a Buddhist prophet then BECOME A BUDDHIST! Stop being a post-modern nihilist.
Good points!
I do think Buddhist ontology can lead to a "do unto the least of these" ethic similar to the kind of morality progressive Christians arrive at.
And yes, Kant came from, if not embraced, a Christian ontology. But his idea that we should practice a morality which, if everyone else also practiced it, would lead to the kind of reality one wishes existed., can show the way to an atheistic ontology that results in a moral layer very similar to a "do unto the least of these" morality. I can kind of visualize how that would work for me if I were an atheist (I'm just barely on the progressive Christian side of agnosticism). I long to live in a reality in which everyone has a good shot at flourishing, and anyone who is having a terrible struggle with that and wants help can get the help that turns them around. In other words, a reality in which we are all willing to share out of our abundance, serve one another when that's needed, and accept one another when we disagree. If everyone did those things, a beautiful reality would have a good chance of arising. I selfishly want to be in that reality. So just out of pure self-interest, coupled with an atheist ontology that sees the logic in Kant's categorical imperative, I could come to a "take care of the least of these" moral layer.
Of course it wouldn't work. I mean, I could see my way to adopting it, but not everyone else would, and as "The Parable of the Tribes" by Andrew Schmookler so beautifully illustrates, even if one player is willing to adopt coercion and force, a nonviolent, embrace-all ethic will fail to work on the group level. So it isn't any more practical when it comes out of an atheist/categorical imperative ontology than when it comes out of a progressive Christian or Buddhist ontology. But even if it can't work in our universe, it's still feels worth abiding by as best as one can. It might "work" individually (result in good persons) even if it can't work as a strategy for political and international accord.
A bare-bones Christian ontology includes (1) the sufficiency of the Living God’s revelation (and supply of real resources in Christ and the Spirit); (2) the insufficiency of some human reception of same. Number 2 is revealed at the end of this age.
I think we are prone to assuming that God needs our ‘correct’ ontology to exist. As such God has become contingent on us!
Your challenge is useful. It allows me to stress this descriptive reality: (1) the Living God is (2) God has revealed this sufficiently to every human (3) those who have accepted God’s real resources in Christ and the Spirit will be known at the end of this age (4) until that day, live out this reality (albeit imperfectly).
There's little doubt to me that much of the "prophecy" on social media is merely performative. Prophecy must include action and sacrifice. Is it possible, then, that true prophecy, (ie. words and action) comes directly from the True, perhaps without verbally acknowledging specific ontological claims? I love the push back to experiencing the Real, but I'm unconvinced that doing so requires an explicitly Christian metaphysic. Since, in my opinion, the Judeo-Christian moral vision is rooted in the Real, it seems non-Christians can also access this moral vision by connecting directly to the Real. This, I know, tends toward something akin to Huxley's Perennial Tradition.
I wish I had time to really respond, but if curious, here's Chat-GPT's attempt to take up Beck's challenge: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68a5ebeeef708191930196d65a8e5c1c
I think Christians' failure to live out the basic moral teachings of Jesus and Paul (and in the Trump age, to actively embrace their opposite) would be seen by many liberal, progressive and ex-Christians as significantly undermining the ontological claims of Christianity. If this stuff was true, how could someone be part of a church for 70+ years and be more of a d*ck at the end of it than at the beginning?
I wonder if you have read The Sovreignty of Good by Iris Murdoch? Even though it's 50 years old, it's a good attempt to provide an ontological basis for our ethical intuitions.
I have really enjoyed this series. You have been expressing these thoughts here and there before (books or here) but it seems like you are bundling these specific themes together and freshly articulating them.
This entry sounds a little bit like the structural proposals that an Atheist such as Sam Harris would make against Christianity. But this scenario begs a deeper question: “Why are there ‘Ex-Christian Prophets’ in the first place (?) - Those who apparently knew Jesus personally and intimately, who then with continuing compassion and fortitude, would still seek to make it a better world by caring for the poor, the disaffected and the abused. Why did they sever their branch from The Vine? What turned off their ontological grounding to strike passionately out on their own, intellectually and spiritually disconnecting themselves from ‘The Man from Galilee’, who said He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Is the suffering of the world just too much of a contradiction for them to maintain that center-point perspective? Have they allowed Science to build an impenetrable wall around their heart?
Patch Adam’s has said - “We can never get a re-creation of community and heal our society without giving our citizens a sense of belonging.”
Paradoxically, Post-Christian social compassion is an answer to ‘Theodicy’, where one imagines at the end of time, when we all stand before the throne, we can throw the judgement back at God, and state; “I did my part, where the hell were you?” Can we actually sustain and genuinely love others in balance, without a metaphysical grounding in the ultimate Goodness of God (?) If you don’t believe that you need forgiveness as a prerequisite to loving others, then potentially pride, rather than joy, is driving your engine. How long can you go under the weight of your limited power?
Boom.
“Boom” indeed! This Sunday I am speaking on the universal gift of prophecy in the church (1 Cor 14), and Dr Beck has provided some on-point equipping