Supererogation and Christian Ethics

This, I think, makes more sense than Adams' account of the woman who anoints Jesus with incredibly expensive perfumes. Adams says the incident shows Jesus' commitment to the existence of supererogatory acts. This woman does what Jesus says is a wonderful thing, but he doesn't say she does the best thing. Adams assumes, then, that the disciples' criticism of the woman is correct in one thing. Giving the money to the poor would have been better. This ignores, first of all, that John tells us that it is Judas Iscariot who says this and that his motivation is to pocket the money. The point in John's gospel is not that what she did is just fine even if not the best thing. It's that she's got the proper motivation as opposed to Judas'. Judas is interested in material wealth and material concerns, and he frames his objection in terms of material concern for the poor even though that's not his real reason. It's all he can contemplate as a moral reason. But surely the focus on Jesus is more important than even concern for the poor.

In Mark, there's no such clear contrast, and there are multiple people discussing this incident negatively, but I think the point is the same. The poor will continue to be there, but he won't. The time is short for him, and Valuing time with Jesus and recognizing his immeasurable worth is a much higher priority at this time. This isn't to say that feeding the poor is bad, and Jesus doesn't say that. She understands something those complaining do not, and she is therefore doing what's better. It's not that it's an ok second-best. It's that it's better than what they're suggesting, even in these circumstances.

I think it also makes better sense of the Sabbath. Adams sees the Sabbath as a chance for people not to have to follow moral obligations but to do what is simply enjoyable, which reflects God's enjoying and not just continuing to create. I think this ignores that the Sabbath is a command. It is a rigid command in the old covenant, and it is fulfilled in the new covenant with more general principles that underlie the original, rigid command. New covenant believers aren't committed to a rigid lawlike pursuit of rest on the seventh day. The principle of rest is important. We are to enjoy our completed work and delight in things that are hard to delight in when we're working hard at other things. But that itself is a command, and it has moral force. It thus occurs among the moral considerations always at play. It isn't a sign of supererogation. It is in fact a sign that moral obligation even appears with things that we often think of as options.

Now I do think there is something that looks an awful lot like supererogation, and I think its presence is what generates a lot of the examples Adams gives. Consider the very different lifestyles of Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King, Jr. The way Adams describes it, Aquinas loved philosophy as much as he did and devoted his whole life to it for motives that are thoroughly Christian, and King loved justice so much and devoted his whole life to it for motives that are also thoroughly Christian, and he says he thinks King's motives were perhaps the better of the two. But both are fine, and you can't really be both ways without sacrificing something. I'm not sure I have any problem with different people devoting their lives to different projects out of motives that reflect something in the mind or heart of God. They are perfecting something that approaches God's perfection at the expense of other things.

I happen to think these two examples are a bit extreme. A close look at Aquinas' life suggests to me that he was lacking in some important things that a balanced Christian ought to have. He was too devoted to his work, even for a single man. He wasn't sufficiently concerned about people in his life, and he didn't spend a lot of time doing the kinds of good works that I think every Christian should have a least some part in doing, even if those less gifted in certain ones ought to focus their time on what they're gifted to do. Of course he may also have been autistic. I think there are signs of that. That might provide some excuse, and perhaps that was part of God's intent in creating someone who could achieve something as astounding as the amount and quality of work Aquinas produced. King, on the other hand, did under-emphasize many things that I think it is extremely important for a preacher of God's word to emphasize. The gospel is not, in my view, clear enough in King's public preaching, and I wonder if he emphasized material freedom for black people more than other concerns that are even more important, although some of them (e.g. unity among all races in God's kingdom) depend on things that he had a hand in moving in the right direction.

Nevertheless, I think someone in the direction of an Aquinas and someone in the direction of a King could both be, in their own way and according to their own gifting, be moving toward the "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" command in the right ways. It's just that God has designed them differently, with different giftings, different motivational structures, and so on. A King-like concern for justice can be taken too far if it ignores other things, and an Aquinas-like love of philosophy can be taken too far if it ignores other things. But given that some people might be especially well-placed to achieve political change and to adopt a particular issue as a life mission, a balanced person can still focus on something like social justice without settling for something inferior. In fact, that might be the best place for someone like that. Given that someone might be well-placed intellectually, in terms of ability, motivation, and resources, to do well in philosophical thinking and to have an impact in the world of ideas for the sake of God's kingdom, someone else might be doing what's best in seeking a career in philosophy. Some of the latter category might be in a research position at a major university, influencing thought at a higher level. Others might be teaching at a community college, encouraging college students to reflect more carefully about their lives but not having an impact on many of the movers and shakers in academia.

God places different people in different places and gifts them for different ministries. That doesn't conflict with there being moral obligations about what we should do given where God has placed us and what he's gifted us for. Nothing about my denial of supererogation conflicts with this observation. In fact, it makes sense of why we ought to be doing what God has placed us to do. On Adams' view, we can do what is less good and thus not God's intent, and that would be perfectly ok. That's not what I see in the biblical texts discussing such things. I see an obligation to seek out how best I might serve God and the kingdom, given what I'm like, what opportunities are placed before me, and which motivations and pursuits could help fulfill what being perfect as God is perfect might be like in my case. So this is a sense of options for different people that aren't really options for the individual.

So I conclude that supererogation isn't needed to capture the things Adams rightly takes from the biblical authors, and the things he takes that do require supererogation are not the best way to take the texts.