"Moral judgments about human relationships are not 'secondary derivatives' of the fact that a Being called 'God' happens to be interested in justice. They are directly and wholly connected with the assertions of the Existence of God in itself."222

However, there is no need to prove the necessity of a revolution in the field of morality. It broke out a long time ago, and it does not look like a "reluctant revolution". Here, the winds of change have already turned into a storm. There is only one task left for us: to correctly correlate this revolution with the one we have described above, and to try to figure out what the Christian attitude towards it should be.

A multitude of voices in the Church greet this revolution with shrill fright. Religious sanctions are losing their force, moral guidelines are being eroded, the nation is in danger. This is how the apostasy from Christianity ends: the fathers rejected the teaching, the children rejected morality. In general, we can repeat almost unchanged this time the words of Bonhoeffer about the process of secularization, which we have already quoted:

"Catholic and Protestant historiographers... agree that in this development one should see a great falling away from God, from Christ, and the more energetically they attract God and Christ, opposing such a course of events, the more this development itself understands itself as anti-Christian.

This is where the danger lies. Christianity is simply identified with the old, traditional morality. Everything would still be fine if this morality were really Christian. In fact, it is only the ethical equivalent of the supranaturalistic worldview. And although in its time such morality undoubtedly served the Church, and to religious people it still seems adequate and even vital, it would still be a real disaster if we allowed Christianity to fall apart with it. In the meantime, we are moving towards this.

According to the traditional view, good and evil are indeed "secondary derivatives" of God. They are determined by the commandments that He has established. The classic expression of this view in the language of mythology is the handing of stone tablets to Moses on the top of the mountain. They are given directly from heaven, they are eternal, they completely determine human behavior. But in morality, as in metaphysics, the transition from the "supreme" to the "otherworldly" God has long since taken place, so that these "absolute norms" are now, as a rule, offered to us without mythological vestments. Therefore they may be conceived in terms of "natural" rather than "positive" law, but they are still "inscribed" in the universe, still "given," objectively and unchangeably. Such and such actions are always "bad" and "nothing can justify them," such and such actions are always "sinful," whether or not they are considered "criminal" in the changing minds of human communities. The ultimate expression of such thinking is, of course, the code of Roman Catholic moral theology, majestic in its unshakable monolithic. But this same way of thinking permeates (perhaps in a more confused form) the entire ethical teaching of the Church, Catholic and Protestant, official and unofficial.

A good example is the traditional treatment of one of the most hotly debated moral issues, the question of marriage and divorce. Of course, within the Church, and even within the camp that might be called supranaturalistic, there are quite different views on this issue. For example, there is a profound difference in the interpretation of the "indissolubility" of marriage. Some say that the word "indissoluble" means: "marriage should never be dissolved". Others understand this to mean that marriage "cannot be dissolved" because marriage creates a physical or metaphysical union that is as indissolved as it is impossible to cease to be brother and sister. The latter point of view is characteristic of the supranaturalistic worldview as a whole, which Dr. RenLewis analyzes in his essay "The Decline of Magism in Art and Politics." It is based on the assumption that the whole network of empirical relations is only an outer veil under which the world of occult realities is hidden, which lies behind the apparent order of things. Onto, this invisible world, constitutes the ultimate truth about man, society, and nature, no matter how empirical facts may seem to contradict this at first glance. Examples are the "divine right of kings"225 and the medieval doctrine of "degrees" – a mystical hierarchy based on "birthright" or "birthright" – or the "doctrine of signatures"226. Behind the experiential relationships are invisible realities, entities, structures whose dignity is rooted in the eternal order of things and is not dependent on any changes in the phenomenal world. To the same category belongs the judgment that the essence of marriage is a metaphysical or quasi-physical reality, constituted by the sacrament and existing completely independently of the actual quality of personal relations. No matter how obvious the signs of the complete absence of practical manifestations of this "essence" are of no importance. After all, no empirical facts can affect this reality, and no legal fictions can destroy it. According to this supranaturalistic version, the dissolution of marriage is impossible not just for moral reasons, but, so to speak, "by definition". It is not that "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder"227; A person will not be able to do this, no matter how hard he tries. For marriage is not only indissoluble: it is indelible.

Some are willing to borrow the supposedly compelling arguments developed by this worldview to support the "sanctity of marriage." Well, the only question is how many people today believe in the doctrine of "marriages are made in heaven" in its form. In any case, it is clear that there is very little chance of success for those who offer such a teaching to a world that has completely departed from this view of life in everything—in science, in politics, in art, and in religion. Moreover (and more importantly), it is far from clear that such a doctrine has any basis in the teachings of Jesus or in the New Testament. In it, as in the mythological worldview, there is nothing specifically Christian. This is simply the metaphysics of the pre-scientific era. To link Christianity with it means to discredit it along with this obsolete metaphysics.

But there is another version of the supranaturalistic marriage ethic that is much more prevalent, especially among Protestants. According to this version, marriage, like everything else in life, is based on an absolute commandment, or the Law of God, or on the teachings of Christ, which are interpreted in an equally legalistic way. God has established "laws that must never be broken." Divorce is always absolutely unjust. If any concessions were made, it was only "because of the hardness of human heart." But even in this case, people must remember where they came from. After all, "absolute moral norms" are predestined for everyone and forever. The supranaturalistic ethic is sanctioned by Mount Sinai228 and "the clear teaching of our Lord." There can be no doubt about Christian standards in this area, as in any other. With all changes, they are unchanged; The Church's task is to call people to observe these rules and to the religion on which they are based.

This position remains much more attractive in the eyes of society. Indeed, people think, this is exactly what the Church should stand for. And when it turns out that someone, and even more so a bishop, does not agree with this, it makes a deeply shocking impression. However, it is obvious that the laws in question are among those that are written mainly in order to violate them. The sanctions of Sinai are no longer intimidating, and the authority of Jesus, even as a great moral teacher, is no longer heeded. By depriving these authorities of their supernatural support, people found that the code of generally accepted rules of life based on them was now difficult to take seriously. "Why not?.." or "What's wrong with that?.." are the questions that our generation demands answers. And the answers of the supernaturalists—that God or Christ has declared that this is a "sin"—retain force or even meaning only for the "religious remnant" that is waning before our eyes.

But is it possible that Christian ethics is addressed only to this remnant? Of course, the Gospels do not give reason to believe that the gate has ceased to be narrow. Yes, "few find them" (Matt. 7:14). But in the Gospel there is no indication that Christian ethics is suitable only for "religious". It is for everyone: it is based on human nature, and it is no accident that Jesus did not turn to Moses and the Law to substantiate His teaching on marriage, but directly to the days of creation (Mark 10:29). It is universal: it is not only for homo religiosus.

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS