You can’t really demonstrate a religion doesn’t support (temporal/geographic) impartiality simply because it doesn’t have a specific type of parable, especially when it does have other parables/teachings that could plausibly qualify for the broader point (as others here have pointed out). I do not recall learning anything approaching Longtermism in Sunday School, but I certainly was taught to interpret “thy neighbors” as far broader than my literal neighbors, and that we are all brothers and sisters under Christ.
Ultimately, I can’t confidently say what my thoughts are on the ultimate conclusion (e.g., whether on balance Christianity pushes people towards globalism and Longtermism), but I certainly don’t find the arguments in this post compelling.
I quite agree with this, particularly since there is a straightforward explanation why Christian scripture would not have focused on people far away in time and space: there were fewer technological possibilities for affecting people far away than there are today. [Edit: I now realize this point appears in footnote 2]
I do find it noteworthy that on the one occasion where Jesus was asked whom to count as a neighbour, he deliberately expands the circle and asks listeners to think about whom they can be a neighbour to.
It’s a good point about the moral circle expansion.
Maybe I can flip it and ask you: To the extent that Christians do not behave impartially towards people in other countries or people who won’t be born for hundreds of years, do you think they are failing to follow the teachings of Christ?
-- If we don’t radically expand our concern and love relative to the status quo, we are not following the teachings of Christ
—It’s hard to see the specific kind and strength of impartiality that utilitarianism recommends in the Bible (but this doesn’t mean, as I said in the first point, that the status quo is OK)
I am not trying to argue that Christianity does not support impartiality—there are certainly plausible readings of Jesus’s teachings (like that of the Good Samaritan) as plausibly supporting impartiality.
I’m more trying to argue that Jesus’s teaching does not necessarily push you to that conclusion.
Jesus is very explicit about the importance of things like:
helping those in need—the widow, the orphan
being faithful to the Father
being humble and meek
not seeking salvation in this world
And the church has emphasized those teachings in the 2000 years since.
I everyone who studies Christianity comes away saying those traits are core to Christianity—even if not all Christians practice them.
But very few Christians arrive at the conclusion that we should try to help people on the other side of the world or who are not alive yet with just as much effort as we try to help the people in our immediate community. So I think it’s fair to say that the idea of impartiality is not core to the Christian worldview and belief the way charity, faith, humility, are. It’s not intuitive for most Christians the way those other traits are (again—even if they don’t achieve).
If Jesus had told such a parable, maybe impartiality would be more intuitive to more Christians.
I’m curious—do you think that impartiality directly follows from Christian teaching? Maybe it follows directly than I am thinking, or I have a weird notion about what it means for something to be “consistent” with a religion vs. “following” from it.
I’m more trying to argue that Jesus’s teaching does not necessarily push you to that conclusion.
I don’t really think this is a fair standard, or at least it feels like a motte-and-bailey when compared to the post title (“Impartiality is not baked into to Christianity”). I don’t think that Jesus’ teaching “necessarily” pushes self-identifying Christians to believe almost anything.
You write that
Jesus is very explicit about the importance of things like: [...] being humble and meek
But in fact there are plenty of megachurches and preachers that seemingly extract and teach contrary lessons (e.g., Pastor Dollar). There are also many pagan/spiritualist versions of Christianity that embrace very different teachings.
You ask
do you think that impartiality directly follows from Christian teaching?
My short answer is “broadly yes, even if not strongly in all dimensions of impartiality,” as I previewed in my original comment: I think people are inherently (including through socialization) prone to care more about their geographic and ethnic neighbors, but I do not think Christianity strongly reinforces this. In fact, I think the Bible clearly promotes the opposite principle: impartiality, as most broadly summarized in the Golden Rule. Whether Christians are inclined to interpret this to apply to future generations and very distant neighbors is a separate question.
You can’t really demonstrate a religion doesn’t support (temporal/geographic) impartiality simply because it doesn’t have a specific type of parable, especially when it does have other parables/teachings that could plausibly qualify for the broader point (as others here have pointed out). I do not recall learning anything approaching Longtermism in Sunday School, but I certainly was taught to interpret “thy neighbors” as far broader than my literal neighbors, and that we are all brothers and sisters under Christ.
Ultimately, I can’t confidently say what my thoughts are on the ultimate conclusion (e.g., whether on balance Christianity pushes people towards globalism and Longtermism), but I certainly don’t find the arguments in this post compelling.
I quite agree with this, particularly since there is a straightforward explanation why Christian scripture would not have focused on people far away in time and space: there were fewer technological possibilities for affecting people far away than there are today. [Edit: I now realize this point appears in footnote 2]
I do find it noteworthy that on the one occasion where Jesus was asked whom to count as a neighbour, he deliberately expands the circle and asks listeners to think about whom they can be a neighbour to.
It’s a good point about the moral circle expansion.
Maybe I can flip it and ask you: To the extent that Christians do not behave impartially towards people in other countries or people who won’t be born for hundreds of years, do you think they are failing to follow the teachings of Christ?
Hm, hard question.
Personally, I would think:
-- If we don’t radically expand our concern and love relative to the status quo, we are not following the teachings of Christ
—It’s hard to see the specific kind and strength of impartiality that utilitarianism recommends in the Bible (but this doesn’t mean, as I said in the first point, that the status quo is OK)
Thanks for the pushback!
I am not trying to argue that Christianity does not support impartiality—there are certainly plausible readings of Jesus’s teachings (like that of the Good Samaritan) as plausibly supporting impartiality.
I’m more trying to argue that Jesus’s teaching does not necessarily push you to that conclusion.
Jesus is very explicit about the importance of things like:
helping those in need—the widow, the orphan
being faithful to the Father
being humble and meek
not seeking salvation in this world
And the church has emphasized those teachings in the 2000 years since.
I everyone who studies Christianity comes away saying those traits are core to Christianity—even if not all Christians practice them.
But very few Christians arrive at the conclusion that we should try to help people on the other side of the world or who are not alive yet with just as much effort as we try to help the people in our immediate community. So I think it’s fair to say that the idea of impartiality is not core to the Christian worldview and belief the way charity, faith, humility, are. It’s not intuitive for most Christians the way those other traits are (again—even if they don’t achieve).
If Jesus had told such a parable, maybe impartiality would be more intuitive to more Christians.
I’m curious—do you think that impartiality directly follows from Christian teaching? Maybe it follows directly than I am thinking, or I have a weird notion about what it means for something to be “consistent” with a religion vs. “following” from it.
I don’t really think this is a fair standard, or at least it feels like a motte-and-bailey when compared to the post title (“Impartiality is not baked into to Christianity”). I don’t think that Jesus’ teaching “necessarily” pushes self-identifying Christians to believe almost anything.
You write that
But in fact there are plenty of megachurches and preachers that seemingly extract and teach contrary lessons (e.g., Pastor Dollar). There are also many pagan/spiritualist versions of Christianity that embrace very different teachings.
You ask
My short answer is “broadly yes, even if not strongly in all dimensions of impartiality,” as I previewed in my original comment: I think people are inherently (including through socialization) prone to care more about their geographic and ethnic neighbors, but I do not think Christianity strongly reinforces this. In fact, I think the Bible clearly promotes the opposite principle: impartiality, as most broadly summarized in the Golden Rule. Whether Christians are inclined to interpret this to apply to future generations and very distant neighbors is a separate question.