FOR DISCUSSION: SOME THOUGHTS ON ADOPTING CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Despite the large number who readily describe themselves to be Christian, underlying cultural and denominational differences among followers of Christianity make it hard to detect common attitudes to Christian ethics. This should not surprise us. Each Christian community has to decide where to put its emphasis in choosing which behaviours and which attitudes are most important from a Christian perspective. Although many would agree that the Bible and Christian tradition is important in making moral choices, different backgrounds, different dominant settings and different pressures and perceived dangers, help us select which of the many religious ideas will be valued in practice. In addition our personal experiences in education and feelings about the history of our nation (and even of our local region) inevitably shapes our attitudes (and fears) directed to people who don’t share our particular strand of religion.   For those secure in their own denomination there is often the assumption that those in radically different Churches must therefore be in error.

While large numbers accept the Bible to be an important source document, there is far less agreement about how much of the Bible is intended to be followed in our modern world. Some fundamentalist Christians may not like the fact, but simple observation tells us traditions of the early Israelites and early Christian communities don’t resonate with all Christian communities. The Book of Leviticus might tell how a past tribe was instructed to eat, drink and dress, but few modern Christians feel constrained by the same traditions. Although there is plenty to admire in the Bible, it would take an obtuse or poorly informed Christian to fail to notice that along with the positive examples, there is much which is negative or archaic. Elijah’s murderous treatment of the Priests of Baal is hardly appropriate inspiration for modern interfaith dialogue any more than Moses or Joshua with their recorded acts of ethnic cleansing provide guidance as to how best to treat those born into different faith communities.

While notions of love, justice for all and forgiveness for one enemies are supported in some scriptures, in other places, so too are harsh attitudes to wrong-doers, rejection of those born into different faiths, ultra-strict discipline for children (including an injunction to execute a child who curses his parent), harsh treatment of old women, support for owning slaves (including permission to sell one’s daughters into slavery).  In the Old Testament there is instruction for taking retribution against the descendents of those who were consider to have sinned, an injunction to stone to death adulterers, even laws requiring execution for those who work on the Sabbath, routine punishment of people for the sins of others, together with permission to rape females captured in battle.

Dominant views in separate faith communities inevitably influence how much freedom should be encouraged when it comes to new ideas. We might lament a resistance to scientific discoveries when at the time the new knowledge was thought to threaten Christian faith eg the very late Church acceptance of Galileo’s views of the Solar system, or the creationist dismissal of the theory of evolution, yet this can also be understood as a choice of which authority is preferred as part of a chosen world view. This spills over to our ethical choices. An assumption that Biblical injunctions are true for all time might give us a feeling of security but makes it more difficult to deal with modern ethical choices where new factors come into play. Mercy killing might be unacceptable to one who sets great store by the Ten Commandments, yet it becomes more problematic when a suffering patient is being kept alive artificially in a modern hospital. If our faith community valued a family structure modelled on Biblical tradition, it would be hardly surprising to find a pattern of male dominance and female submission in such a community.

There is irony in the way which conservative positions strongly defended in the past by Church leaders gradually morph into equally strong support for the opposite points of view as the mood of the majority evolves.   For example universal suffrage was once strongly opposed by leaders and spokesmen of many denominations yet is now almost universally supported.  I suspect few modern Presbyterians would now support the 19th Century prominent Southern US Presbyterian minister quoted as insisting: “The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.”  Similar changes are noted in attitudes to dancing, the acceptance of divorce, attitudes to slavery and more recently some relaxation of attitudes towards homosexuality.

It is also possible to have a mismatch between the self image of the faith we claim to follow and our actual behaviour. A number of commentators have noted that the very States in the US where claims of faith are the most strident also have the highest crime rates. Not all murderers are atheist. By way of example, many would accept that Jesus’ inspiring teaching from the Sermon on the Mount was wise, yet in practice, influences of nationalism are sufficiently strong to ensure no shortage of those prepared to kill instead of forgive those designated as enemies by the State. To bring it closer to home, taking no thought for the morrow and not storing up treasures on Earth is not often the visible characteristic of today’s Christian in the first World.

Christian ethics have changed through the centuries. From the earliest Christian communities through to modern times various Christian community leaders have sought to reinterpret the essential Christian teaching for changing circumstances. Paul’s letters to the various Churches of his day provide advice to members of those congregations to meet specific ethical problems but later thinkers further developed these ideas. For example Augustine made a serious attempt to incorporate some of Plato’s ideals into a Christian framework.

Even where a Christian group will try its best to follow the Spirit of the Christian teachings in the New Testament, the simple truth is that many moral issues in the twenty first century have no Biblical precedent. Issues like genetic engineering, stem cell research,euthanasia, deforestation, air and water pollution, trade imbalances, mineral exploitation, sweat shop practices, debt forgiveness, the arms trade etc all take us into new and often uncharted territory. It is also difficult for a group which has chosen to accept one particular standard to accept that those with a different background and different set of accepted authorities can choose a different set of standards. This leads to some curious anomalies. For example most Western Christians are horrified at the willingness of Saudi Arabians to support the beheading of criminals accused of capital crimes like murder. Some Christians in the Bible Belt of the United States are on record as wishing their equivalent criminals to be executed by gas chamber or lethal injection. The degree to which this represents a difference in moral leadership is a moot point.

A further problem for individual Christian communities is that majority democratic views often run counter to the wishes of those attempting to be true to the ethics of a particular Christian group. As a consequence treating others as we might wish to be treated implies a much more generous treatment of refugees and third world nations than most democratically elected Governments could countenance.

Even within a Christian denomination there are competing ethical positions. Many Church congregations for example might claim to support notions of helping the most vulnerable in society, yet in practice spend the bulk of their income on Church buildings. Christians who adopt liberation theology with a consequent concern for injustice and concerns for freedom of the oppressed finish up with a radically different ethical emphasis to those who seek to conform to religious patterns of behaviour or those whose main concern is to expose the un-churched to the teachings of Christ.

QUESTIONS (Your thoughts please!!)
What are the observable ethical characteristics of your faith that are observable to an outsider or newcomer?
Does your faith community challenge any of the community norms – if so how?
Is the choice of Christian ethics influenced by rewards? (in this life or even the next?)
Which ethical standards are shared by most Christian denominations in practice.
Which ethical standards are obviously variable between denominations?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Moral Issues and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to FOR DISCUSSION: SOME THOUGHTS ON ADOPTING CHRISTIAN ETHICS

  1. dave says:

    I don’t wish to derail the possible discussion but I wish the definition of ‘Christian ethics’ had been included. Christianity is saddled with its two main Scriptures, the Old Testament with the stories of the Jews barely surviving a number of occupations and wars with nearby military powers, with the ethics being more ‘tribal’ than modern, and the New Testament with the stories of Jesus who was crucified by the Romans during the Jewish insurrection of the First Century. The teachings of Jesus were more modern than those in the Old Testament, because the Middle East had socially advanced during the Greek Empire – where the works of the notable Greek philosophers brought new insights that were never previously widely discussed within the smaller cultures, like the Jews.
    If the definition of ‘Christian ethics’ was limited to the teachings of Jesus the Christ (so truly ‘Christian’) then I suspect more denominations might be in agreement given the smaller scope for interpretations. Unfortunately those Christian leaders seeking a more militant confrontation with non-believers or with those seeking more modern interpretations of the New Testament (like liberation theology) can find justification in those Old Testament works.
    What distinguishes Christian ethics from those of other religions? All religions must be based on the same very simple rules of behavior, like no killing, no stealing, respect for parents, and no adultery (though Mormonism was somewhat unique with its tolerance of polygamy). We are all social beings, with empathy for others and intuitively/instinctively we realize we should respect others. Religions often tend to have varying directions on ethical exceptions like how to deal with those in other religions or with those who somehow do not conform with the group, like left handedness or homosexuality or another race.
    Christianity is not alone among the major religions having denominations. Islam has its Sunni and Shiite sects. Hinduism has 4 main sects. Buddhism has 3 main branches. All these branches find significantly different interpretations on the ancient scriptures.
    Each Christian community usually defines its ethics from the combination of those cultures within the local community and how that basis interprets the ancient scriptures. Those Christians choosing to be members of that local denomination must find some synergy with their background, so it is difficult for a faith community to challenge the local norms – simply because of that synergy. Only inspired leadership can convince those members to go beyond their accepted norms in response to changes in society outside of their group – but it is readily apparent Christian ethics are evolving (as noted in the essay) with more tolerance of birth control practices, marriages with other races or other religions, and homosexuality, compared with the intolerance practiced only several generations ago.
    What are ‘Christian ethics’ and how are they different than those in the other major religions? (If I google ethics with the name of another religion I can find the basic rules are often similar.) If the ethics differ among the major Christian denominations then I assume the set of ethics probably depends on the local community or regional culture- so then there would be no single characterization of ethics to be followed by all Christians.

  2. peddiebill says:

    Thanks for the comment Dave. I hoped you would reply because I value your opinion (and would recommend readers to visit your site)
    I guess I thought I was trying to open up some of the very same points you were making.

    “ Christian ethics” – I understand to be the ethical system by which ethical choices of Christians are worked through. That may seem relatively straightforward at first sight in that the chosen morality supposedly derives from the Bible, from the teachings of Christ, from the accepted Christian traditions, and from other contemporary and philosophical sources which are thought to inform and assist Christian choices. The trouble is that each Christian group and even each Christian individual is far from clear how each source is to be treated and in practice we find ourselves confronted with a moral landscape which may well satisfy us but one which will be seen as inappropriate by others. Almost any moral problem rapidly sinks in a mire of debate in that each source is used differently.

    I for example like to think of myself as a pacifist under most (but not all) circumstances. I am attracted to the verse which says “Blessed are the Peacemakers” and other verses which enjoin me to turn the other cheek and forgive my enemy. I am confused however when it comes to nutters who are waging war against innocent civilians without what I happen to think is good justification and I want them stopped by force if necessary. Other Christians choose to be totally pacifist (eg the Quakers) or warlike ie those who choose to go to war for varying degrees of moral justification including the age-old attractions of possessions and power. The ultimate authority for some is the voice of God which for some unaccountable reason told George W Bush to go into Iraq!! Altiora Petrol – We seek higher Octane???? All Christians with all shades of attitudes to war will find scriptures and traditions to support their cause.

    Similarly you will find Christians on both sides of the right to life debate, genetic modification, euthanasia.

    I agree that other religions finish up with similiar ethical systems (and similar ranges of opinion) At the same time I suspect we can see the gradual and slow evolution of higher standards of morality as thinking people who are seeking more humane solutions to age-old problems gradually converge in their thinking. Who knows, one day the “Charter of Compassion” may gather wide acceptance.

    • dave says:

      Pacifism is the logical tendency for those having the most empathy for others. To find justification for war and murder it is necessary to somehow dehumanize those to be persecuted, and that is the basis for the propaganda toward war. I also hope there is this gradual evolution to higher standards of morality; I feel progress has been made in morality over the past 2 millenia and within the past century. Unfortunately within the past few decades America now pushes its global military empire even as the world is pushed toward an unaccountable global financial governance, so war is preferred over diplomacy.

      One possible hurdle to a common humane solution is the proclamation of the ‘true’ religion. Whether a person believes in a particular religion, or even none at all, is so dependent on his/her context – parents, community, local culture, etc. Some religions just make sense to some people, whereas other religions do not. If the religions are society’s mechanism for defining ethics then that means some cultures inherently have different rules of ethics – just because the religions that can ‘stick’ in those cultures will be different. The awesome diversity in humanity is confronted with finding a common set of rules for basic ethics and religion is a part of that but it cannot be the only part.

  3. peddiebill says:

    I am not optimistic about a proclamation of a true religion that others (apart from the ones doing the proclaiming) can accept. After all is not that the intention of IS (the self claimed world-wide Islamic State). Far from being over-joyed at this suggestion the current response is to attempt to bomb them into oblivion.

  4. peddiebill says:

    Yes I am aware that mainstream ISIS is not supported by mainstream Islam. On the other hand it was US support for the Shia government in Iraq that alientated Sunni in the North that gave ISIS an advantage and made it possible to gain a substantial foothold in Iraq. The US has certainly had an ambiguous association with IS and at one stage IS was also being supported by the government in Syria because it was fighting against some of the rebel groups. In this instance the Wikipedia article on IS (and its various manifestations) not only shows a widespread rejection of IS by most Sunni but also makes a case for seeing it as one form of Islam. My point was merely that IS claimed to offer a unification of the Muslim world and like all other offers to unify religion it is not acceptable to anyone outside IS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s