Ethos And Faith

I belong to a denomination  - the United Church of Canada - that places a great deal of emphasis on its “ethos.” We're not, it seems, entirely sure of exactly what that “ethos” is, but we believe in it pretty strongly. In fact, it's one of the guiding principles (perhaps THE defining principle) of our denominational life. For example, I rarely see a posting for any position within the church bureaucracy (as opposed to we who are mere pastors of local churches) that doesn't include as one of its requirements “general agreement with” or “sympathy with” or at least “understanding of” our “ethos” - or words to that effect. Considering that the word doesn't appear in any of our formal denominational documents, that's a bit tricky. What is our “ethos” and who - in the absence of any formal definition - gets to define it?

“Ethos” is a Greek word that means “character.” So we're talking about the “character” of the United Church. I also assume that we take the word “ethics” from the same root. So, by combining those two concepts together, I come to the conclusion that our “ethos” is our ethical character. Although undefined, I think the United Church “ethos” would revolve (for those who claim adherence to it) around (1) inclusiveness, (2) justice and (3) humility. We strive to be inclusive - to invite all to the table or into the community - usually emphasizing being inclusive of those who are otherwise to some extent marginalized. So we seek to be inclusive of the poor, of homosexuals, of women - you get the point. This, of course, raises the problem that by being inclusive of some groups we run the risk of being exclusive of others. We strive to promote justice - which I think would mean that we stand for the inherent dignity and worth of all people and for their right to be treated accordingly. That I have no issue with. We strive to be humble. No doubt that is an appropriate characteristic for a Christian, although at times it leads to a sort of wishy-washiness. It sometimes seems as if we don't want to take strong stands on matters of faith because if we actually claim to be convinced of something that could be taken as arrogance. There's the rub.

Our “ethos” needs to flow from and be an outgrowth of our faith, but if we become too “humble” to want to proclaim anything with very much certainty, then our “ethos” has no foundation on which to stand, and too often it's the “ethos” that has taken over our public witness and proclamation. It seems to me that too often we proclaim the “ethos” and not the faith. So sermons from United Church pulpits often become little more than encouragement to do all sorts of good things in the name of justice and inclusion and humility, but there's no particular grounding in why those good things should be done, except for the arbitrary decision that they're good things. Faith is that which teaches us what is good. Faith in Jesus, based on the particular words Jesus speaks in the pages of the Gospels, based on the application and interpretation of those words by Paul and others in the later New Testament, based on broad principles laid down in the Old Testament, gives us the solid foundation for our ethos. But when “ethos” stands alone - as it seems to do all too often - it's quite powerless, subject to being dismissed when something more convincing comes up.

“Ethos” isn't something to be proclaimed. It's something to be lived. What we proclaim (to ourselves and others as encouragement) is our faith - our faith in Jesus; a faith summed up by the wonderful words of the Communion liturgy: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” If our “ethos” displaces faith in Christ at the centre of who and what we are, then we're in trouble. I certainly don’t mean that we can’t preach about social justice or social issues – but we have to do so from the perspective of faith (and, from our point of view, especially faith in Jesus Christ) and not simply because it’s our “ethos.” I deliberately entitled this “Ethos and Faith” rather than “Ethos or Faith” or “Ethos vs. Faith” because I see the two standing in partnership, working collaboratively. “Ethos” is the practical living out of faith. If faith is the soul, then “ethos” is the body. But if “ethos” doesn't flow from faith, or becomes isolated from faith, then it has no soul, and no real power to make a difference in the world. Then, it is at best an ideology - something that divides rather than unites; something that sets people against one another rather than bringing people together in common cause. Then, it becomes an excuse for us vs. them thinking. Christ would not approve.

I'm not sure what the plural of the word “ethos” is. In any event, I think within a Christian paradigm, there are broadly 4 of them. There's the “ethos” of victory - which basically says “we've got it and you don't and so we're better than you and too bad.” It's based on an attitude of superiority. There's the “ethos” of evangelism, which is based on the idea that our most important job is to convert people to the Christian faith. It's based on an attitude of love - I really believe something terrible is going to happen to you if you don’t believe this, and I don’t want something terrible to happen to you, so please believe it.” There’s the “ethos” of justice, which is based on an attitude of compassion – “I see the downtrodden and I want to help them.” There’s the “ethos” of relationship – “I believe we need to bring people together and accept our diversity by building a relationship of respect in spite of our differences.”

I probably operate out of the fourth. “Relationship” is the key to my preaching and teaching and personal faith. For Scriptural justification I look to the prayer of Jesus in  John 17 “that they might be one,” or to the Christmas story, where Jesus, we are told, will be “God With Us,” or the Genesis story of creation, which tells us that when all was in its perfect state there was no shame between people and God walked with us or to the Book of Revelation, which promises that one day the dwelling of God will be with us and  God will live with us. I don’t deny that the other three perspectives can be argued from Scripture (although I choose the fourth because I think the first can only be argued from a misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture, the second divides us rather than brings us together and the third can easily become an anonymous way of helping – so I give to charity but never actually encounter a needy person.) My denomination, I think, operates mostly out of the third – and I see the problem I identify above with that position in congregations I know. I’ve pastored congregations that will offer a lot of help to the poor, for example, but put a poor person in their midst and they’re not quite sure what to do, and they tend to shy away from the person.

To be a follower of Jesus is to have far more than an “ethos” – an ethical character which governs how we approach life. To be a follower of Jesus is to have faith in Jesus, and to build your ethos around him and his teachings and his example. That’s why it has to be ethos and faith. It’s always a both/and. It’s never an either/or.