LAUSR

I would like to thank Professor Barclay for his stimulating article. I fear that much of what I have to say in response is going to be in support of his argument! This is not to say I didn’t also find myself challenged by his argument. Having inherited a few Protestant instincts myself, I think I am susceptible to what Barclay terms ‘exclusive altruism’—to the raw appeal of its radicalness, the hints of irrationality even. Whether Luther or Bonhoeffer have contributed to this ideal of ‘exclusive altruism’, and how exactly, may be a matter for debate. What is beyond dispute, to my mind, is the contribution made by the likes of Kant and Nygren: when we instinctively baulk at the notion that Christian self-sacrifice is ordered towards gain, we prove ourselves to be in thrall to their ethic of disinterestedness. As Barclay’s article illustrates, the onus tends to be not on those emphasising self-sacrifice, but on those looking for the gain in it. I, too, baulked at Barclay’s rejection of ‘exclusive altruism’—though not for very long. For his article quickly reminded me why an ethic of disinterested self-sacrifice cannot do justice to the full dimensions of the Christian life, as painted by St Paul in Philippians. (Indeed, it reminded me of what makes Christian ethics so much more interesting, not restricted by the zero-sum anthropology with which secular ethics so easily gets bogged down.) Not only does Barclay offer a fresh reading of Philippians, but his reading also shines a helpful light back on the Gospels: while self-sacrifice is at the heart of the discipleship to which Jesus calls his followers, it is Jesus himself who also points to the gain that awaits those who follow. From Barclay’s argument, I take away the following related points. First, Christ’s kenōsis is not the culmination of but a moment within God’s redeeming work. Rather than exhausting all that God is achieving in and through Christ, it is teleologically