Theology Pub Outline
Do We Exist For One Another?
Do We Exist for One Another?
Public art is a thriving trend now in newly rebuilt parts of the modern city near coffee shops, apartments, gathering spaces, and carefully designed public areas. Years ago, through LOVEHuntsville and related community projects, I spent a great deal of time thinking about the role of public art in civic reconstruction. Cities are not rebuilt by concrete alone. They are rebuilt by shared stories, shared symbols, and shared moral assumptions. Murals matter because they reveal what a culture believes about itself.
One particular mural caught my attention because it unintentionally became a near-perfect test case for analytical theology.
“We Exist for One Another”
At first glance, it feels deeply Christian.
And in a sense, it is.
Christianity absolutely teaches sacrificial love, service, charity, mercy, hospitality, and concern for neighbor. Most people in modern Western society, even many who are not religious, instinctively recognize these as moral goods. The statement feels noble because it reflects moral instincts shaped by centuries of Christian influence.
But this is where analytical methodology becomes useful.
Rather than asking merely:
“Do I emotionally agree with this statement?”
we ask:
“What underlying worldview produces this statement?”
Or, using the framework I have been developing:
“I believe [X] because [Y].”
That small shift changes everything.
The mural gives us the creed:
“We Exist for One Another.”
But why?
Why should human beings exist for one another?
Why should I sacrifice for strangers? Why should I love my enemy? Why should the strong protect the weak? Why should human life possess inherent dignity?
Modern culture often assumes these answers are self-evident. Historically, they are not.
A strictly materialist worldview could just as easily conclude:
- we exist to survive,
- we exist to reproduce,
- we exist to accumulate power,
- we exist to maximize pleasure,
- we exist for tribal advantage.
None of those systems naturally produce self-sacrificial love as the highest moral virtue.
Christianity does something very different. Christ summarized the law first as love of God, then love of neighbor. The order matters because the second commandment flows from the first. Human beings possess value because they are created in the image of God. Love of neighbor is not detached humanitarian sentiment. It is theological consequence.
So Christianity does not merely say:
“Exist for one another.”
It says:
“Exist for God, and therefore love one another.”
That distinction becomes even more important when we compare the mural’s aspiration to the diagnosis given in Titus 3.
The mural describes what we wish humanity to be.
Titus 3 describes what humanity often is.
Paul writes about envy, deception, disordered desires, and finally people becoming “hateful and hating one another.” That phrase stands in direct tension with the mural. We say we exist for one another, yet history repeatedly demonstrates our tendency to consume one another instead.
This is one of the places where Christianity is unusually honest about the human condition.
Most modern moral systems emphasize aspiration:
- build community,
- love people,
- unite humanity,
- heal divisions.
Christianity certainly includes those ideas, but it also insists on diagnosis. Human beings are not simply uninformed. We are morally fractured. We are capable of building hospitals and concentration camps with the same species, the same intelligence, and often within the same century.
The problem is not merely insufficient education or insufficient empathy. Something deeper is wrong.
That is why the Christian framework does not stop at moral instruction. It moves toward redemption, transformation, repentance, mercy, and reconciliation with God.
This is also why cultural creeds fascinate me analytically. Human beings constantly generate compressed doctrines:
- slogans,
- mission statements,
- protest chants,
- hashtags,
- corporate values,
- song lyrics,
- murals.
These operate much like ancient creeds. They compress assumptions about reality into memorable forms that shape identity and behavior.
The mural is especially interesting because it preserves the second half of Christian morality while quietly removing the first half of Christian theology.
Yet even that reveals something important.
Modern Western culture still speaks Christian moral language long after forgetting where the language came from.
And perhaps that should lead us to another question:
If we truly believe human beings exist for one another, what foundation is strong enough to sustain that belief when human beings inevitably fail one another?
Theology Pub Host Preparation
Expand each section below to read additional material for preparing a Theology Pub discussion. The goal is not to win an argument, but to host an honest conversation about a moral slogan many people instinctively affirm, but few have carefully examined.
Theology Pub Discussion Outline
Do We Exist for One Another?
1 Hour Conversation Outline
Introduction: The Creed on the Wall
Begin with the mural itself: “We Exist for One Another.” Ask the group what they feel when they hear it. Does it sound true? Noble? Christian? Humanist? Sentimental? Political? Let the first few minutes surface instinctive reactions before analyzing the statement more deeply.
Opening Question
What does it mean to say that human beings “exist for” one another? Is this a statement about love, duty, social responsibility, human dignity, community, or something else?
Worldview Decomposition
Use the simple framework:
“I believe [X] because [Y].”
In this case:
“I believe we exist for one another because…”
Invite the group to complete the sentence from different perspectives.
Discussion Prompts
- If human beings are merely biological organisms, why should sacrificial love be morally superior to survival or power?
- Can a society preserve Christian moral instincts after removing Christian theology?
- What does it mean to love your neighbor if your neighbor becomes costly, inconvenient, or hostile?
- Does modern culture offer moral aspiration without moral diagnosis?
- Why does Christianity place love of God before love of neighbor?
Scriptural Anchor
Compare the mural with Titus 3. The mural expresses what we hope humanity to be. Titus 3 describes what humanity often becomes apart from grace: foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved by passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.
Christian Redirect
Christianity does not deny the beauty of the mural’s aspiration. It deepens it. Human beings are called to love one another because they are made in the image of God, because Christ loved us first, and because reconciliation with one another flows from reconciliation with God.
Closing Question
Can “we exist for one another” survive as a moral claim if it is separated from the God for whom we ultimately exist?
Worldview Analysis
Cultural Creeds and Moral Foundations
The phrase “We Exist for One Another” functions as a cultural creed. It is short, memorable, morally charged, and communal. It does not merely describe behavior. It shapes identity.
The analytical question is not whether the statement is emotionally appealing. It is. The deeper question is what kind of worldview can ground it.
Materialist View
A materialist account may explain cooperation through survival, kin selection, reciprocal altruism, or social utility. These explanations may describe how cooperative behavior emerges, but they do not fully explain why sacrificial love should be morally binding, especially when it benefits the weak, the stranger, or the enemy.
Therapeutic Humanist View
A therapeutic humanist view may affirm kindness, empathy, inclusion, and belonging. This can produce a warm and humane moral vocabulary, but it often struggles when moral obligations conflict with personal authenticity, autonomy, or self-expression.
Progressive Civic View
A progressive civic view may ground the phrase in social solidarity and justice. Human beings exist for one another because flourishing is collective, not merely individual. This view rightly recognizes the social nature of human life, but still must explain why the individual should sacrifice for the collective when the cost becomes personal.
Christian View
The Christian view grounds love of neighbor in love of God. Human beings possess dignity because they are made in the image of God. They are worthy of love not because they are useful, powerful, agreeable, or innocent, but because God has given them sacred worth.
Christianity also explains why the phrase is both beautiful and insufficient. We ought to exist in love toward one another, but we often fail to do so because sin fractures desire, community, and worship. The answer is not merely education, sentiment, or social programming. The answer requires redemption.
Central Analytical Distinction
Modern culture often preserves the ethical fruit of Christianity while severing it from the theological root.
The result is a moral vocabulary that still sounds Christian, but may no longer know how to defend itself when challenged by power, selfishness, despair, or hatred.
A Serious Objection Worth Considering
Is Christianity Necessary for Love of Neighbor?
A thoughtful critic might object that Christianity does not own compassion. Many non-Christians love sacrificially, serve the poor, protect the vulnerable, and build communities of care. History also shows that Christians have often failed to love their neighbors well. Sometimes they have even used theology to justify exclusion, domination, or violence.
That objection should be taken seriously.
The Christian claim is not that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, or adherents of other religions are incapable of love. They plainly are capable of love. Nor is the claim that Christians always live consistently with their own doctrine. They plainly do not.
The deeper question is not whether compassion exists outside Christianity. The deeper question is what ultimately grounds compassion as a moral obligation.
If human beings are valuable only because society assigns them value, society can withdraw that value. If dignity is grounded in usefulness, the weak are endangered. If love is grounded in preference, enemies become disposable. If morality is grounded in consensus, then history shows how quickly consensus can become cruel.
Christianity offers a more durable foundation. Human dignity is not granted by the state, the tribe, the market, or the self. It is received from God. Love of neighbor is not merely a social strategy. It is obedience to the God who first loved us.
Still, the critic provides a necessary warning. Christians must not merely claim the superior foundation. They must live as though they believe it. A doctrine of love that does not become visible in mercy, hospitality, repentance, and justice becomes one more empty cultural slogan.
Question for the Table
Is the problem with modern culture that it loves too much, or that it borrows the language of love while losing the foundation that makes love sacred?