Christian ethics, also called moral theology, takes its metaphysical core from the Bible, seeing God as the ultimate source of all power. Evidential, Reformed and volitional epistemology are the three most common forms of Christian epistemology. The variety of ethical perspectives in the Bible has led to continued disagreement over the basic Christian ethical principles, with at least seven major principles undergoing perennial debate and reinterpretation. Christian ethicists use reason, philosophy, natural law, the social sciences and the Bible to argue modern interpretations of those principles. The Christian ethical system is concerned with application to all areas of personal and societal ethics. Christian ethics has elements of both virtue ethics, which focuses on the building of an ethical character, and deontological ethics, which assesses choices.
Christian ethics originated during the period of Early Christianity between AD 27–30 and AD 325. It continued to develop throughout the middle ages when the rediscovery of Aristotle led to scholasticism and the writings of Thomas Aquinas. The Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Christian humanism all had a lasting impact on Christian ethics particularly its political and economic teachings. A branch of theology for most of its history, Christian ethics separated from theology during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For most scholars of the twenty-first century, it fits in a niche between theology on one side and the social sciences on the other. Modern Christian ethics has been heavily impacted by the loss of its connection to theology and by secularism.
Christian ethics, also called moral theology, was a branch of theology for most of its history.[2]:15 As a field of study, it was separated from theology during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and Christian ethicist W.Beach says that, for most scholars of the twenty-first century, it has become a "discipline of reflection and analysis that lies between theology on one side and the social sciences on the other".[3]:41[4] The Christian ethical system is a virtue ethic, which focuses on the building of an ethical character, and it is also a deontological ethic which assesses choices as morally required, forbidden, or permitted. These two approaches are normally seen as contrasting with one another,[5] yet within the Christian ethical system, they are combined.[6][7]
Theologian Joseph Sittler is quoted as saying the Christian ethic can be defined as "faith doing".[8]:7 According to theologian Servais Pinckaers, "everyone admits [that] Christian ethics is the branch of theology that studies human acts so as to direct them to a loving vision of God seen as our true, complete happiness and our final end. This vision is attained by means of grace, the virtues, and the gifts, in the light of revelation and reason".[9] Theologian Emil Brunner differentiates Christian ethics from the broader topic of philosophical ethics. According to Brunner, the specific element in Christian ethics that sets it apart is the belief that all good human conduct arises from the grace of God (where grace is the power, desire and ability to do right granted from God) including morality that comes from natural law and human nature.[4]:11–12[10]:85 The broad topic of ethics is about principles of right and wrong conduct, but Brunner says the Christian conception of 'good' cannot be defined by principles alone. He asserts that would be a kind of legalism that is contrary to the grace based Christian ethic common since the Reformation.[10]:82
According to Pinckaers, the sources of Christian ethics are the "Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, the Gospel law, and natural law".[11]:xxi, xiii In the Wesleyan tradition, the four sources are scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience (an experience associated with a definite and decisive adoption of Christianity).[12] Christian ethics takes from the Bible both its normative rules that focus on conduct, as well as its patterns of moral reasoning that focus on character.[13]:9;11 Wogaman adds that Christian ethics has also had a "sometimes intimate, sometimes uneasy" relationship with Greek and Roman philosophy taking some aspects of its basic principles from Plato, Aristotle and other Hellenist philosophers reaching back to 600BC.[14]:16
Christian ethics began its development during the period of Early Christianity which is generally thought to have begun with the ministry of Jesus (c. AD 27–30) and ended with the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325.[15][16]:51 It emerged out of the heritage shared by both Judaism and Christianity, and depended upon the Hebrew canon as well as important legacies from Greek and Hellenistic philosophy.[14]:1,16 The Council of Jerusalem, as reported in Acts 15, may have been held in Jerusalem about 50AD. Its decree, known as the Apostolic Decree, to abstain from blood, sexual immorality, meat sacrificed to idols, and the meat of strangled animals, was held as generally binding for several centuries and is still observed today by the Greek Orthodox church.[17]
Early Christian writings give evidence of the hostile social setting in the Roman empire which prompted Christians to think through aspects of Roman society in Christian terms.[14]:26 Christian ethics sought "moral instruction on specific problems and practices" that were not sophisticated ethical analyses, but were instead simple applications of the teachings and example of Jesus to confront specific issues such as the role of women, sexuality and slavery.[14]:24 After Christianity became legal in the fourth century, the range and sophistication of Christian ethics expanded. Through such figures as Augustine of Hippo, Christian ethical teachings had a defining influence upon Christian thought that lasted for several centuries.[15]:774 For example, Augustine's ethic regarding the Jews meant that, "with the marked exception of Visigothic Spain in the seventh century, Jews in Latin Christendom lived relatively peacefully with their Christian neighbors through most of the Middle Ages" until around the 1200s.[18]:xii[19]:3
|
See also: Scholasticism, Thomism, and Catholic moral theology |
In the centuries following the fall of the Roman empire, monks on missionary journeys spread practices of penance and repentance using books known as penitentials.[16]:52–56,57 Christoph Luthardt describes ethics of the middle ages as listing "7 capital sins... 7 works of mercy, 7 sacraments, 7 principle virtues, 7 gifts of the Spirit, 8 beatitudes, 10 commandments, 12 articles of faith and 12 fruits of faith".[20]:287 Riley-Smith says the crusades were products of the renewed spirituality of the central Middle Ages when the ethic of living the Apostolic life and chivalry began to form.[21]:177 The medieval and renaissance periods saw a number of models of sin listing the seven deadly sins and the virtues opposed to each.[22]:130–132
Inaccurate Latin translations of classical writings were replaced in the twelfth century with more accurate ones. This led to an intellectual revolution called scholasticism, which was an effort to harmonize Aristotelian and Christian thought.[23]:220,221 In response, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) wrote "one of the outstanding achievements of the High Middle Ages", the Summa Theologica, that became known as Thomism, containing many ethical teachings that continue to be used.[23]:222
By the 1200s, both civil and canon law had become such a major aspect of ecclesiastical culture that law began dominating Christian ethics.[24]:382 Most bishops and popes were trained lawyers rather than theologians.[24]:382 Luthardt says the legal regulations of the church, and "divine moral law", became confounded, and the moral principle was "lowered to the level of jural legislation... This mixing of the ethical and the juridicial was communicated to the whole thinking of the age".[20]:286; 292
Luther, in his classic treatise On Christian Liberty argued that moral effort is a response to grace: humans are not made good by the things they do, but if they are made good by God's love, they will be impelled to do good things.[14]:111 John Calvin adopted and systematized Luther's main ideas grounding everything in the sovereignty of God.[14]:120 In Calvin's view, all humans have a vocation, a calling, and the guiding measure of its value is simply whether it impedes or furthers God's will. This gives a 'sacredness' to the most mundane and ordinary of actions leading to the development of the Protestant work ethic.[14]:116–122 Calvin upheld the separation of the spiritual and earthly roles for government, asserting that one important role of civil government is to provide restraint for evildoers.[14]:122,123 Thus, Calvin also supported just war in opposition to the pacifism of the Anabaptists of his time.[14]:124 The Reform ethic contributed to ideas of popular sovereignty asserting human beings are not "subjects of the state but are members of the state".[14]:125 During the Reformation, Protestant Christians pioneered the ethics of religious toleration and religious freedom.[25]:3
Max Weber asserted that there is a correlation between the ethics of the Reformers and the predominantly Protestant countries where modern capitalism and modern democracy developed first.[14]:124[26] The secular ideologies of the Enlightenment followed shortly on the heels of the Reformation, but "it is a nice question whether those (Enlightenment) ideas would have been as successful in the absence of the Reformation, or even whether they would have taken the same form".[14]:125
The Roman Catholic church of the 1600s responded to Reformation Protestantism in three ways.[23]:335 Papal reform began with Pope Paul III (1534 - 1549). New monastic orders grew with the most influential being the Society of Jesus commonly known as the Jesuits.[23]:336 The Jesuits commitment to education put them at the forefront of many colonial missions.[23]:336 The third response was by the Council of Trent in 1545 and 1563. The Council asserted that the Bible and church tradition were the foundations of church authority, not just the Bible as Protestants asserted; the Vulgate was the only official Bible and other versions were rejected; salvation was through faith and works, not faith alone; and the seven sacraments were reaffirmed. According to Matthews and Dewitt, "The moral, doctrinal and disciplinary results of the Council of Trent laid the foundations for Roman Catholic policies and thought right up to the present".[23]:337
Christian humanism taught that any Christian with a "pure and humble heart could pray directly to God" without the intervention of a priest.[23]:338 They believed that imitating the early church would revitalize Christianity and restore its original purpose. Matthews and Dewitt write that, "The outstanding figure among the northern humanists — and possibly the outstanding figure among all humanists — is the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus".[23]:338 His ethical views included advocating a humble and virtuous life, education in the humanities, "the study of Classics, and honoring the dignity of the individual". He promoted the Christian ethic as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.[23]:339
Christian ethics separated from theology in the Enlightenment era.[3]:41 The authority of the Bible, faith and religion itself were challenged by pietism and rationalism.[27]:465 This eventually led to the post-modern view that no appeal to authority can be accepted as sufficient to establish truth.[3]:ix The primary concern of the early modern period was the nature of human nature. This included discussion of where moral authority comes from and what defines human responsibility, free will, the nature of the self, and moral character. "Beginning with the rise of Christian social theory" in the nineteenth century, says theologian John Carman, Christian ethics became heavily oriented toward discussion of nature and society, wealth, work, and human equality.[27]:511–512 Carman adds that, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, "the appeal to inner experience, the renewed interest in human nature, and the influence of social conditions upon ethical reflection introduced new directions to Christian ethics".[27]:511–512
Multiple versions of modern Christian ethics have been produced by the influence of different strands of thought. There is also geographic diversity in modern Christian ethics.[27]:464 The Social gospel attempted to respond to the effects of modern industrialization.[3]:41 Immanuel Kant grounded morality in nature, independent of the authority of theology.[3]:41 Stanley Hauerwas asserts this separation of ethics and theology "impoverished" both fields.[3]:42 James M. Gustafson also asserts that modern ethics must be grounded in natural law while addressing both theology and ethics in "an integrative process" that is careful to consider circumstances, method, and procedures for decision making. At the same time, it must also "gather relevant information and knowledge from the social and natural sciences".[8]:xvi In the twenty-first century, Christian ethics is often on one side of a discussion and secularism on the other, with Christian ethics fighting for relevancy.[3]:2 William J. Meyer asserts the answer to this difficulty lies in embracing secular standards of rationality and coherence while refusing secular conclusions.[3]:5 He adds that the "struggle to embrace modernity without abandoning faith ... is arguably the critical fault line in the contemporary world".[3]:5
Gustafson sets out four basic points any theologically grounded ethic must address: (a) (metaphysics) God, his will, and his relation to the world and humans; (b) (epistemology) how humans know and distinguish justified belief from mere opinion, through human experience, community, nature and man's place in it; (c) (ethics) persons as moral agents; (d) and (applications) how persons ought to make moral choices and judge their own acts, the acts of others and the state of the world.[28]:14
The Christian metaphysic is rooted in the biblical metaphysic of God as 'Maker of Heaven and earth'.[4]:25 Philosopher Mark Smith explains that, in the Bible, a fundamental ontology is embodied in language about power, where the world and its beings derive their reality (their being, their power to exist, and to act) from the power of God (Being itself). Theology and philosophy professor Jaco Gericke says that metaphysics is found anywhere the Bible has something to say about "the nature of existence".[29]:207 According to Rolf Knierim, the Bible's metaphysic is "dynamistic ontology" which says reality is an ongoing dynamic process.[29]:208
According to Roger E. Olson, the Christian view of the nature of reality can also be called "biblical theism" or "biblical personalism": the belief that "ultimate reality is a personal God who acts, shows and speaks..."[13]:13,17 This view asserts that humans reflect the relational nature of God.[13]:13,17 Mark Smith explains that, in metaphysical language, the power of lesser beings participates in Power itself, which is identified as God.[30]:162 Humanity is the highest level of development in creation, but humans are still creatures.[4]:25 In the Christian metaphysic, humans have free will, but it is a relative and restricted freedom.[10]:494 Beach says that Christian voluntarism points to the will as the core of the self, and that within human nature, "the core of who we are is defined by what we love", and this determines the direction of moral action.[4]:25–26
Within this ethical system, humans reflect the nature of ultimate reality, therefore they are seen as having a basic dignity and value and should be treated, as Kant said, as "an end in themselves" and not as a means to an end.[13]:18 Humans have a capacity for reason and free will which enable making rational choices. They have the natural capacity to distinguish right and wrong which is often called a conscience or natural law. When guided by reason, conscience and grace, humans develop virtues and laws. In Christian metaphysics according to Beach, "Eternal Law is the transcendent blueprint of the whole order of the universe... Natural Law is the enactment of God's eternal law in the created world and discerned by human reason".[4]:11–12
Christian ethics asserts that it is possible for humans to know and recognize truth and moral good through the application of both reason and revelation.[4]:23 Observation, reasoned deduction and personal experiences, which includes grace and the experience of language, are the means of that knowledge.[31] "It is arguably one of Judaism's greatest contributions to the history of religions to assert that the divine Reality is communicated to mankind through words".[32]:129
Evidentialism in epistemology, which is advocated by Richard Swinburne (1934–), says a person must have some awareness of evidence for a belief for them to be justified in holding that belief.[33] People hold many beliefs that are difficult to evidentially justify, so some philosophers have adopted a form of reliabilism instead. In reliablilism, a person can be seen as justified in a belief, so long as the belief is produced by a reliable means even when they don't know all the evidence.[33]
Alvin Plantinga (1932–) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (1932–) advocate Reformed epistemology taken from Reformer John Calvin's (1509–1564) teaching that persons are created with a sense of God (sensus divinitatis). Even when this 'sense' is not apparent to the person because of sin, it can still prompt them to believe and live a life of faith. This means belief in God may be seen as a properly basic belief similar to other basic human beliefs such as the belief that other persons exist, and the world exists, just as we believe we exist ourselves. Such a basic belief is a 'warranted' belief even in the absence of evidence.[33]
Paul Moser argues for volitional epistemology. He systematically contends that, if the God of Christianity exists, this God would not be evident to persons who are simply curious, but would instead, only become evident in a process involving moral and spiritual transformation. "This process might involve persons accepting Jesus Christ as a redeemer who calls persons to a radical life of loving compassion, even the loving of our enemies. By willfully subjecting oneself to the commanding love of God, a person in this filial relationship with God, through Christ, may experience a change of character (from self-centeredness to serving others) in which the person’s character (or very being) may come to serve as evidence of the truths of faith".[33]
In Christian ethics, such "knowing" of God, truth and moral good is built on different assumptions than those of philosophical epistemology: James Gustafson says the Christian ethic assumes either a condition of piety, or at least a longing for piety.[8]:152 This piety is an attitude of respect evoked by "human experiences of dependence upon powers we do not create and cannot fully master".[8]:87 According to Gustafson, such piety must be open to a wide variety of human experiences, including "data and theories about the powers that order life which come from many areas of human investigation".[8]:87 Such knowing engages the affections, and takes the form of a sense of gratitude.[8]:88 Gustafson also sees trust as an aspect of knowing: underneath science is a trust that there is an identifiable order and discoverable principles beneath the disarray of complex data; this is comparable to the trust of the Christian faith that "there is unity, order, form and meaning in the cosmos ...of divine making".[4]:23–24 Gustafson adds that: "Knowledge conditions are relative to particular communities" and all human knowledge is based on the experiences we have within the culture we live in: all human experience is interpretive.[28]:124
The diversity of the Bible means that it does not have a single ethical perspective but instead has a variety of perspectives; this has given rise to disagreements over defining the foundational principles of Christian ethics.[14]:2,3,15 For example, reason has been a foundation for Christian ethics alongside revelation from its beginnings, but Philip Wogaman points out that Christian ethicists have not always agreed upon "the meaning of revelation, the nature of reason, and the proper way to employ the two together."[14]:3,5 He says there are at least seven ethical principles that Christian ethicists have perennially reinterpreted.[14]:2
The Christian ethic asserts the ontological nature of moral norms from God, but it is also accountable to standards of rationality and coherence; it must make its way through both what is ideal and what is possible.[4]:9 Thus, Beach asserts that some biblical ethics are seen as "more authoritative than others. The spirit, not the letter, of biblical laws becomes normative".[4]:15
|
See also: Problem of evil |
Christian ethics assumes the existence of good and evil. Evil is primarily moral failure, and is seen as a privation of what is good.[34]:5 Since the Christian ethic asserts everything begins with God, and God is defined as the ultimate good, the presence of evil and suffering must be adequately accounted for.[2]:219 Philosophy does not agree on a definition of evil, and Todd Calder says there are at least two concepts of evil in use: a broad concept that defines evil as "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw" and includes all suffering, stemming from all natural events and moral actions.[35] The second is the narrow concept of evil. It only involves moral agents and their actions. Within the narrow view, nature is not a moral agent with the ability to choose, so natural evil has no moral quality.[33] According to Claudia Card, "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others".[36] The Christian ethic does not see all suffering as innately evil because the Christian story "is a story of the salvific value of suffering".[33]
There is tension between inclusivity and exclusivity inherent in all the Abrahamic traditions. According to the book of Genesis, Abraham is the recipient of the promise of God to become a great nation. The promise is given to him and his 'seed,' exclusively, yet the promise also includes that he will become a blessing to all nations, inclusively (Genesis 12:3).[37] Paul argues that because the 'seed' is singular, not plural, it refers to Christ, therefore baptized Gentile Christians are inclusively heirs of the promise if they have Abraham's faith even though they are not Jewish.[37] Yet by the second century, Christianity had also defined what it meant to be a Christian exclusively, by separating itself from Judaism and the Judaizers and heretics through its definitions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy.[38]:1 The God of the Bible is the inclusive God of all nations and all people (Galatians 3:28), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) is a command to go to all nations, yet Wogaman points out that Christians are referred to in the New Testament as the "elect" (Romans 8:33 Matthew 24:22) implying God has chosen some and not others for salvation.[2]:628 Christians and non-Christians have, throughout much of history, had significant moral and legal questions concerning this ethical tension.[39]:8 Yet during the Reformation, Christians pioneered the concept of religious freedom which rests upon an acceptance of the necessity and value of pluralism, a modern day concept often referred to as moral ecology.[25]:3[40]
Christian ethics emphasizes morality. The prophets of the Old Testament show God as rejecting all unrighteousness and injustice and commending those who live moral lives. The law and the commandments are set within the context of devotion to God but are deontological standards defining correct behavior.[39]:8 This is sometimes offered as a contrast to the New Testament ethic which embraces living under grace as meaning no longer living according to law.[39]:8,9 According to Martin Luther, the Christian ethic says those who follow the way of grace are no longer under law but are instead free from the law's power.[14]:111 Yet the Christian ethic requires not only the Old Testament rejection of active murder, but also the New Testament awareness and rejection of the anger and hatred that lead to it (Matthew 5:21-22).[39]:9 In traditional Christian ethics, law and its just enforcement is balanced by the ethics of grace, mercy and forgiveness as aspects of redemption instead of punishment.[39]:9;116–120 Wogaman says that, "Part of the biblical legacy of Christian ethics is the necessity somehow to do justice to both sides".[39]:9 Stanley Rudman asserts that human rights as defined post–WWII is the language through which the Christian ethic is able to relate these concepts to the world.[41]:309–311 In a convergence of opinion among Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and others, this has led to a support of human rights becoming common to all varieties of Christian ethics.[41]:304; 311
Wogaman asserts that "love is, and must remain", the foundation of the Christian ethical system.[39]:331 Individuals are commanded to "turn the other cheek" Matthew 5:38-39, "love your enemies" Matthew 5:43-45, "bless those who persecute you" Romans 12:14-21 and more.[39]:330 Yet he adds that, "justice, as the institutional structure of love, is inevitably dependent upon other incentives, including, ultimately the use of force".[39]:331 The state's ability to create peace and order is in its ability to use force against those who create chaos, disorder and harm to others.[10]:469 Both the Old and the New Testaments contain explicit commands to respect and obey authority.[39]:123 Christian ethics is, and always has been, divided over the interplay of justice, power and personal responsibility.[10]:469
According to the book of Genesis, God created and declared creation, including humans, good (Genesis 1:31). The Song of Songs depicts sensual love as good. Other parts of the Old Testament depict material prosperity as a reward. Yet, the New Testament references the life of the Spirit as the ultimate goal, and warns against worldliness.[39]:7 In the traditional view, this requires self-sacrifice, self-denial and self-discipline, and greatness lies in being a servant to all (Mark 10:42-45).[39]:7[4]:14 Yet according to ethicist Darlene Weaver, "there is no ontological split between self/other; there is no monolithic polarity of self-interested action versus other-regardingness. All people - each of us-in-relation-to-all - have a mandate rooted in God to the sort of self-assertion that grounds and confirms our dignity in relationship".[42]:62,64:64
|
Main article: Christian views on poverty and wealth |
There are a variety of Christian views on poverty and wealth. At one end of the spectrum is a view which casts wealth and materialism as an evil to be avoided and even combatted. At the other end is a view which casts prosperity and well-being as a blessing from God. The Christian ethic is not an opponent of poverty since Jesus embraced it, but it is an opponent of the destitution that results from social injustice.[43]:25 Kevin Hargaden says "No Christian ethic can offer a consistent defense of massive wealth inequality".[43]:77 Some Christians argue that a proper understanding of Christian teachings on wealth and poverty requires a larger view where the accumulation of wealth is not the central focus of one's life but rather a resource to foster the "good life".[44] Professor David W. Miller has constructed a three-part rubric which presents three prevalent attitudes among Protestants towards wealth: that wealth is (1) an offense to the Christian faith (2) an obstacle to faith and (3) the outcome of faith.[45]
Classicist Kyle Harper writes that sexuality was at the heart of Christianity's early clash with its surrounding culture.[46]:1–14,84–86,88 Rome's concept of sexual morality was centered on social status, whereas the Christian ethic was a "radical notion of individual freedom centered around a libertarian paradigm of complete sexual agency".[47]:10,38 For Paul, "the body was a consecrated space, a point of mediation between the individual and the divine."[46]:88–92 This meant the ethical obligation for sexual self-control was placed on the individual, male and female, slave and free, equally, in all communities, regardless of status. In Paul's letters, porneia was a single name for the array of sexual behaviors outside marital intercourse that became a central defining concept of sexual morality, and shunning it, a key sign of choosing to follow Jesus.[46]:88–92
Views on sexuality in the early church were diverse and fiercely debated within its various communities, and this continues.[46]:1–14,84–86,88 In contemporary Christian ethics, there are a variety of views on the issues of sexual orientation and homosexuality. The many Christian denominations vary from condemning homosexual acts as sinful, to being divided on the issue, and to seeing it as morally acceptable. Even within a denomination, individuals and groups may hold different views. Further, not all members of a denomination necessarily support their church's views on homosexuality.[48] According to Lisa Sowle Cahill, "Traditional societies place sex and gender in the context of community, family and parenthood; modern societies respect reciprocity, intimacy and gender equality".[49]:257
John Carman says the central question of Christian ethics is, and has always been, how the Christian and the church relates to the surrounding social and political world.[27]:463 "This has led to the development of three distinct types of modern Christian ethics: the church, sect and mystical types".[27]:463 In the church type (of Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism), the Christian ethic is lived within the world, in marriage, family, and work, while living within and participating in municipal counties, cities and nations. This ethic is meant to permeate every area of life. The ethic of the sect works in the opposite direction. It is practiced by withdrawing from the non-Christian world, minimizing interaction with that world, while living outside or above the world in communities separated from other municipalities. The mystical type advocates an ethic that is purely an inward experience of personal piety and spirituality and often includes asceticism.[3]:465
Christian involvement in politics is both supported and opposed by the different types of Christian ethics.[50] Political science scholar Amy E. Black says Jesus' command to pay taxes (Matthew 22:21), was not simply an endorsement of government, but was also a refusal to participate in the fierce political debate of his day over the Poll tax. Gordon Wenham says: Jesus' response "implied loyalty to a pagan government was not incompatible with loyalty to God."[51]:7
|
Main article: Christianity and violence |
|
See also: Military ethics |
The Christian ethic addresses warfare from the differing viewpoints of pacifism, non-resistance, just war, and preventive war which is sometimes called crusade.[52]:13–37[53] Where pacifism and non-resistance can be seen as ideals in action, Harald Brown describes just wars, preventive wars and crusades as "actions in support of an ideal".[54]:155;161–165 In all four views, the Christian ethic presumes war is immoral and must not be waged or supported by Christians until certain conditions have been met that enable the setting aside of that presumption.[14]:336
Pacifism and non-resistance are opposed to all forms of physical violence based on belief that the example of Christ demonstrates it is better to suffer personally than to do harm to others. Non-resistance allows for non-combatant service where pacifism does not.[55]:63 They both presuppose the supersession of the New Testament over the Old, and believe in the separation of church and state to the degree the Christian does not owe obedience and loyalty to the state if that loyalty violates personal conscience.[55]:81–83;97 Both pacifism and non-resistance are interpreted as applying to individual believers, not corporate bodies, or "unregenerate worldly governments."[55]:36 Mennonite minister Myron Augsburger says pacifism and non-resistance act as a conscience to society and as an active force for reconciliation and peace.[55]:63
Preventive war, crusade and just war recognize that harm can result from failing to resist a tyrannical enemy such as Hitler.[54]:154–155 Preventive war is waged in anticipation of an act of aggression that would violate our ideals of human rights, decency, and sense of right and wrong.[54]:155;161–165 Counter-terrorism is a kind of preventive war.[56] Crusade (which is not necessarily religious) can be seen as an attempt to set right a past act of aggression that was not responded to at the time it occurred. "It attempts to undo what no one had the right to do in the first place" such as the First Gulf War and World War II.[54]:153,158 Just war says war can only be justified as self-defense or the defense of others. Its provisos are more from the Old Testament than the New.[57]:115–135[58]:270–274 The last 200 years have seen a shift toward just war in the moral focus concerning the state's use of force.[59]:59 Justification for war in the twenty-first century has become the ethic of intervention based on humanitarian goals of protecting the innocent.[60]
|
Main article: Criminal justice |
|
See also: Eye for an eye |
Key elements in criminal justice begin with the idea that God is the ultimate source of justice, and the judge of all, including those administering justice on earth.[61] Ethical knowledge and the moral character of those within a justice system are seen as central to the administration of justice with principles prohibiting "lying and deception, racial prejudice and racial discrimination, egoism and the abuse of authority" foremost.[62]:xx
Perception of the meaning of justice impacts a nation's criminal justice system, and the Christian understanding has continued to evolve throughout Christianity's history.[14]:325 Aristotle's classic definition of justice, giving each their due, entered into Christian ethics through scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas. For Aristotle and Aquinas that meant a hierarchical society with each receiving what was due according to their social status. This allows for the criminal justice system to be retributive, and fails to recognize a concept of universal human rights and responsibilities. After Aquinas, the social gospel redefined getting one's due as: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Along these lines, justice had an egalitarian form while retaining male domination. Similarly, justice for slaves was defined as paternalistic care.[14]:325 As Wogaman says: "We can expect such issues to continue to occupy Christian ethics for years to come".[14]:325
In Christian ethics of the twenty-first century, capital punishment has become controversial, and there are Christian ethicists on both sides. Biblical ethicist Christopher Marshall says there are about 20 offenses that carry the death penalty in the Old Testament.[63]:46 "Evans explains that contemporary standards tend to view these laws of capital punishment as cavalier toward human life", however, the ancient ethic of covenantal community suggests the value of life was as much a communal value as an individual one.[63]:46–47 Contemporary society acknowledges that maintaining community requires rewards and punishments; order is maintained by the state's ability to enforce its requirements.[64]:18
Capital punishment can be seen as respect for the worth of the victim by calling for the equal cost to the offender; it can also be seen as respect for the offender, treating them as free agents responsible for their own choices who must bear the responsibility for their acts just as any citizen must.[65] Those in favor of abolishing the death penalty have sometimes elevated the condemned into an oppressed brotherhood, but John P. Conrad asserts that those on Death Row have committed terrible crimes for which they have seldom expressed regret and a few even took pride in.[64]:9 The argument against capital punishment is not based on the offender's guilt but on the belief that killing is wrong and never a permissible act, even for the state.[64]:10
In most ancient religions the primary focus is on human kind's relationship to nature, whereas in the Christian ethic, the primary focus is on the relationship with God as the "absolute moral personality".[20]:23 This is demonstrated as a focus on relationship itself as a primary concern in all Christian ethics.[66]
|
See also: Parable of the Good Samaritan |
Traditional Christian ethics recognizes the command to "love thy neighbor" as one of the two primary commands called the "greatest commands" by Jesus.[67]:24 This reflects an attitude that aims at promoting another person's good in what Stanley J. Grenz calls an "enlightened unselfishness".[68]:175 When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?", Grenz says the questioner intended to limit the circle of those to whom this obligation was due, but Jesus responded by reversing the direction of the question into "To whom can I be a neighbor?".[68]:107 In the parable of the "Good Samaritan", the use of a racially despised and religiously rejected individual as an example of the good, defines a neighbor as anyone who responds to those in need.[69]
The full thought in Mark 12:31 is to love others as one loves oneself, and Christian ethics has not traditionally supported self-love as a good. According to Koji Yoshino, "altruistic love and self-love are not contradictory to each other. Those who don't love themselves cannot love others, nevertheless, those who ignore others cannot love themselves".[70]
|
Further information: Christian feminism, Christian egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Biblical patriarchy |
The four primary views of Christian ethics on the roles of women include Christian feminism, which defines itself as a school of Christian theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women.[71] Christian egalitarianism argues that the Bible supports "mutual submission" without requiring a hierarchy of authority.[72] Complementarianism sees women as 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.[73] Biblical patriarchy asserts 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, and 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in a hierarchical manner as part of an inerrant biblical authority.[74][75]:97
Jesus held women personally responsible for their own behavior: the woman at the well (John 4:16–18), the woman taken in adultery (John 8:10–11), and the sinful woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:44–50), are all dealt with as having the personal freedom, and enough self-determination, to choose their own repentance and forgiveness.[76]:127 The New Testament names many women among the followers of Jesus as well as naming women in positions of leadership in the early church.[77][78][75]:54,112 Before the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, ordination was dedication to a particular role or ministry, and in this capacity, women in the church were ordained up until the 1200s.[79]:30 When theologians of this medieval period circumscribed the seven sacraments, they changed the vocabulary and gave the sacraments exclusively to male priests.[79]:30 In the nineteenth century, rights for women brought a wide variety of responses from Christian ethics with the Bible featuring prominently on both sides ranging from traditional to feminist.[80]:203 In the late twentieth century, the ordination of women became a controversial issue. Linda Woodhead states that, "Of the many threats that Christianity has to face in modern times, gender equality is one of the most serious".[81]
|
Further information: Christian views on divorce |
According to Barbara J. MacHaffie, the early church fathers treated married life with some sensitivity, as a relationship of love and trust and mutual service, contrasting it with non-Christian marriage as one where passions rule a "domineering husband and a lusty wife".[80]:24 In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus is seen as emphasizing the permanence of marriage, as well as its integrity: "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so".[82][83] Restriction on divorce was based on the necessity of protecting the woman and her position in society, not necessarily in a religious context, but in an economic context.[84] Paul concurred but added an exception for abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.[85]:351–354
Augustine wrote his treatise on divorce and marriage, De adulterinis coniuigiis, in which he asserts couples may only divorce on the ground of fornication (adultery) in 419/21, even though marriage didn't become one of the seven sacraments of the church until the thirteenth century.[85]:xxv Though Augustine confesses in later works (Retractationes) that these issues were complicated and that he felt he had failed to address them completely, adultery was the standard necessary for legal divorce until the modern day.[85]:110 The twenty-first century Catholic Church still prohibits divorce, but permits annulment (a finding that the marriage was never valid) under a narrow set of circumstances. The Eastern Orthodox Church permits divorce and remarriage in church in certain circumstances.[86] Most Protestant churches discourage divorce except as a last resort but do not actually prohibit it through church doctrine, often providing divorce recovery programs as well.[87][88]
|
Further information: Religion and sexuality § Christianity, and Catholic theology of sexuality |
|
See also: Celibacy |
|
See also: Christianity and homosexuality |
Lisa Sowle Cahill refers to sex and gender as the most difficult topics in new studies of Christian ethics. As "the rigidity and stringency of ...traditional moral representation has collided head-on with historicized or "postmodern" interpretations of moral systems," Cowell says tradition has acquired new forms of patriarchy, sexism, homophobia and hypocrisy.[49]:xi Feminist critics have suggested that part of what drives traditional sexual morality is the social control of women, yet within postmodern western societies the "attempt to reclaim moral autonomy through sexual freedom" has produced a loss of all sense of sexual boundaries.[49]:75;xi Cahill concludes that, "Personal autonomy and mutual consent are almost the only criteria now commonly accepted in governing our sexual behavior".[49]:1
The gospel requires that all relationships be reconfigured by new life within the community, yet the New Testament has no systematic investigation into all facets of any moral topic, no definitive guidance for the many variations of moral problems that exist in the twenty-first century. [49]:121 Christian ethics, by its nature, is a transformative ethic of discipleship. Cowell says, New Testament authors challenge that which perpetuates sin, and encourage the transformation that "embodies the reign of God".[49]:122 Thomas Whitby asserts that, "Today, an uneasiness about sex continues to linger as a heritage from ... early Christian efforts to cope with the sexual impulse".[89]
While Jesus made reference to some that have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,[90] there is no commandment in the New Testament that priests must be unmarried and celibate.[83] During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons.[83] In the twenty-first century, the Roman Catholic Church teachings on celibacy uphold it for monastics and priests.[91] Protestantism has rejected the requirement of celibacy for pastors, and they see it primarily as a temporary abstinence until the joys of a future marriage. Some modern day evangelicals desire a more positive understanding of celibacy that is more like Paul's: focused on devotion to God rather than a future marriage or a lifelong vow to the Church.[92]
|
Main article: Christian views on slavery |
In the twenty-first century, Christian organizations reject slavery, but historically Christian views have varied, embracing both support and opposition.[93][94][95][96] Slavery was harsh and inflexible in the first century when Christian ethics began, and slaves were vulnerable to abuse, yet neither Jesus nor Paul order the abolition of slavery.[97] At this time, the Christian view was that morals were a matter of obedience to the ordained hierarchy of God and men.[98]:296 Paul was opposed to the political and social order of the age in which he lived, but his letters offer no plan for reform beyond working toward the apocalyptic return of Christ. He did indirectly articulate a social ideal through the Pauline virtues, and indirectly undermined the mistreatment of women, children and slaves through his teachings on marriage and his lifestyle. Paul's refusal to marry and set up a household that would require slaves, and his insistence on being self-supporting, was a model followed by many that "structurally attacked slavery by attacking its social basis, the household, and its continuity through inheritance from master to master".[98]:308–309
In the early 4th century, Roman law, such as the Novella 142 of Justinian, gave bishops (and priests) the power to free slaves by a ritual performed by that Christian bishop or a priest in a church. It is not known if baptism was required before this ritual.[99] Several early figures, such as Saint Patrick (415-493), Acacius of Amida (400-425), and Ambrose (337 – 397 AD) while not openly advocating abolition, made sacrifices to free slaves.[100] Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) went further and stated opposition to all slavery as a practice.[101][102] Later Saint Eligius (588-650) used his vast wealth to purchase British and Saxon slaves in groups of 50 and 100 in order to set them free.[103]
By the time of Charlemagne (742-814), while Muslims were coming onto the scene "as major players in a large-scale slave trade" of Africans, Alice Rio says that slavery had become almost non-existent in the West.[104]:38;167 Rio says criticism of the trade in Christian slaves was not new, but at this time, opposition began to get wider support, seeing all those involved in the trade as "symbols of barbarity".[104]:39 Slavery in Africa existed for six centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese (1500s) and the opening of the Atlantic slave trade.[105]:8 Economics drove its development in the West, but Herbert S. Klein adds that the trade was abolished in the U.S. while it was still profitable and important to the American economy.[105]:188 Early abolitionist literature viewed the abolition of slavery as a moral crusade.[105]:188 Churches became vital parts of that effort with abolitionists, reformers, and supporters of slavery all using Christian ethics to justify their relative positions.[105]:84–85;277–279;281–286
Stories of racial violence over the last decades of the twentieth century and the early decades of the twenty first demonstrate how troubled issues involving race remain.[106]:186 Paul Harvey says that, in the 1960s, "The religious power of the civil rights movement transformed the American conception of race".[106]:189 The social power of the religious Right responded in the 70s by recapturing and recasting many evangelical concepts into political terms including support of racial separation.[106]:189 Since then, Harvey says the prosperity gospel, which has become a dominant force in American religious life, has translated evangelical themes into "a modern idiom" of "self-empowerment, racial reconciliation, and a 'positive confession'" (which Harvey defines as an amalgam of positive thinking, evangelical tradition and New Thought).[106]:196–197 The prosperity gospel's multi-cultural demographic may suggest much about the future of Christian ethics and race.[106]:196–197
Bioethics is the study of the life and health issues raised by modern technology that attempts to discover what Scott B. Rae and Paul M. Cox call "normative guidelines built on sound moral foundations".[107]:vii This is necessary because the moral questions surrounding new medical technologies have become complex, important and difficult.[108]:9;11 David VanDrunen opines that with the tremendous benefits of medical advances, have come the "eerie forebodings of a future that is less humane, not more".[108]:12 Charges of abuses of technology in neo-natal intensive care units have already been leveled.[107]:93,94 Remedies for infertility enable researchers to create embryos as a disposable resource for stem cells. Manipulating the genetic code can prevent inheritable diseases and also produce, for those rich enough, designer babies "destined to be taller, faster and smarter than their classmates".[108]:12 Scripture offers no direct instruction for when a right to life becomes a right to death.[108]:14
The Catholic bioethic can be seen as one that rests on natural law. Moral decision making affirms the basic "goods" or values of life, which is built on the concept of a hierarchy of values, with some values more basic than others.[107]:20,17 For example, Catholic ethics supports self-determination but with limits from other values, say, if a patient chose a course of action that would no longer be in their best interests, then outside intervention would be morally acceptable.[107]:18 If there is conflict over how to apply conflicting values, Rae and Cox say that then a proportionate reasoned decision would be made. This is defined as including values such as preservation of life, human freedom, and lessening pain and suffering while also recognizing that not all values can be realized in these situations.[107]:19–20
The Protestant Christian ethic is rooted in the belief that agape love is its central value, and that this love is rooted in covenant fidelity expressed in pursuit of good for other persons.[107]:20–22 This ethic as a social policy may use natural law and other sources of knowledge, but in the Protestant Christian ethic, apape love must remain the controlling virtue that guides principles and practices.[107]:23 This approach determines the moral choice by what is the most love-embodying action within a situation. Rae and Cox conclude that, in this view, actions that can be seen as unconditionally wrong, when they are acts of maximal love toward another, become unconditionally right.[107]:24
New technologies of prenatal testing, DNA therapy and other genetic engineering help many, yet Wogaman asserts they also offer ways in which "science and technology can become instruments of human oppression".[14]:303 Genetic technologies can correct genetic defects, but how one defines defect is often subjective. Parents might have certain expectations about gender, for example, and consider anything else as defective.[107]:118–120 In some Third World countries where "women have far fewer rights and female children are viewed as liabilities with bleak futures", genetic testing is widely used for sex selection, and some couples have terminated otherwise healthy pregnancies because the child was not the desired gender.[107]:121 Research into the gene for homosexuality could lead to prenatal tests that predict it, which could be particularly problematic in countries where homosexuals are considered defective and have no legal protection.[109] Such intervention is problematic morally, and has been characterized as "playing God".[107]:93,94
The general view of genetic engineering by Christian ethicists is stated by theologian John Feinburg. He reasons that since diseases are the result of sin coming into the world, and because Christian ethics asserts that Jesus himself began the process of conquering sin and evil through his healings and resurrection, "if there is a condition in a human being (whether physical or psychological) [understood as disease], and if there is something that genetic technology could do to address that problem, then use of this technology would be acceptable. In effect, we would be using this technology to fight sin and its consequences".[107]:120
|
Further information: Christianity and abortion |
Stanley Rudman boils down the abortion debate by saying that "if one says that the central issue between conservatives and liberals in the abortion question is whether the fetus is a person, it is clear that the dispute may be either about what properties a thing must have in order to be a person, in order to have the right to life - a moral question - or about whether a fetus at a given stage of development... possesses the properties in question" - a biological question.[41]:50 Most philosophers have picked out the capacity for rationality, autonomy and self-awareness to describe personhood, but there are at least four possible definitions: in order to be a true person, a subject must have interests; possess rationality; be capable of action; and/or have the capacity for self-consciousness.[41]:53 A fetus fails to possess at least one and possibly all of these, and so it can be argued that the fetus is not a true person.
Rudman points out how this approach becomes a slippery slope, as the argument can then be used to justify infanticide, which most people do not support. "Without assuming the Christian moral framework" concerning the sanctity of life, "the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. Neither classical utilitarianism nor preferential utilitarianism ... offer good reasons why infanticide should necessarily be wrong".[41]:44–46 P. Singer in Practical Ethics describes the Christian argument as "It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a fetus is an innocent human being" therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus.[41]:46[110] Rudman asserts the Christian ethic is more than a simple syllogism, it is "a narrative that includes the child in God's family, takes into account the entire context surrounding its birth, including the other lives involved, and seeks harmony with God's redeeming activity through Christ. It includes confidence in God's ability to sustain and direct those who put their trust in him".[41]:339
|
Further information: Christian views on alcohol |
The Christian ethic concerning alcohol has fluctuated from one generation to the next. In the nineteenth century, the largest proportion of Christians in all denominations resolved to remain alcohol free. While it is true that some contemporary Christians, including Pentecostals, Baptists and Methodists, continue to believe one ought to abstain from alcohol, the majority of contemporary Christians have determined that moderation is the better approach.[111][112]:4–7
Ethicist Christopher C. H. Cook asserts that the primary question for Christian ethics revolves around the fact that alcohol misuse is a "contemporary social problem of enormous economic significance, which exacts a high toll in human suffering".[112]:1 All persons must, directly and indirectly, determine their ethical response to alcohol's enormous popularity and widespread acceptance in the face of its social and medical harm.[112]:4 The Christian ethic takes seriously the power of addiction to "hold people captive, and the need for an experience of a gracious 'Higher Power' as the basis for finding freedom".[112]:199
Daniel P. Sulmasy lists arguments against physician-assisted suicide (PAS): those advocating it might do so for selfish/monetary reasons rather than out of concern for the patient; that suicide devalues life; that limits on the practice erode over time and it can become over-used; that palliative care and modern therapeutics have become better at managing pain, so other options are often available; and that PAS can damage a physician's integrity and undermine the trust patients place in them to heal and not harm.[113]
In Christian ethics, responses to assisted suicide are rooted in belief in personal autonomy and love.[107]:19–20; 24 This remains problematic as the arguments commonly used to defend PAS are concepts of justice and mercy that can be described as a "minimalist" understanding of the terms. A minimal concept of justice respects autonomy, protects individual rights, and attempts to guarantee that each individual has the right to act according to their own preferences, but humans are not fully independent or autonomous; humans live in community with others. This minimalist view doesn't recognize the significance of covenant relationships in the process of decision making.[114]:348;350 Empathy toward another's suffering tells us to do something but not what to do. Killing as an act of mercy is a minimalist understanding of mercy that is not sufficient to prevent unethical acts. [114]:349–350 Battin, Rhodes and Silvers conclude that the Christian ethic asserts "life and its flourishing are gifts of God, but they are not the ultimate good, and neither are suffering and death the ultimate evils. One need not use all of one's resources against them. One need only act with integrity in the face of them".[114]:352
David VanDrunen explains that modern technology has treatments that enable a persistent vegetative state (PVS) which has led to questions of euthanasia and the controversial distinction between killing and letting die.[108]:197 PVS patients are in a permanent state of unconsciousness due to the loss of higher brain function; the brain stem remains alive, so they breathe, but swallowing is a voluntary reflex, so they must receive artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) to survive. These patients can be without other health problems and live for extended periods. Most ethicists conclude it is morally sound to decline ANH for such a patient, but some argue otherwise based on defining when death occurs.[108]:232
The twenty-first century has seen an increased concern over human impacts on the environment, including global warming, pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, species extinction, overpopulation, and overconsumption.[115]:xi There appears to be a strong scientific consensus that industrialized civilization has emitted enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect causing global warming, yet debate rages primarily over the economic effects of limiting development.[14]:312–313 Michael Northcott says both issues will have to be dealt with: the reorientation of modern society toward recognizing the biological limits of the planet will not occur without a related quest for justice and the common good.[115]:xiii American Christians have become polarized over many of these issues with many conservatives responding in opposition because of fear to the perceived threat that modern pluralism poses to their values.[116] Wogaman argues that the "doctrine of creation creates a presumption in favor of environmental conservation".[14]:327 As Francis Schaeffer said: "We are called to treat nature personally".[115]:127 Michael Northcott says the incarnation shows God loves material reality, not just spirit.[115]:129 He adds that the Christian ethic, with its concepts of redemption of all physical reality and its manifestation in community and relation to others, is "a vital corrective to modern individualism which devalues both human and non-human distinctiveness".[115]:209
The debate over the inhumane treatment of animals revolves around the issue of personhood and animal rights.[41]:1,2 In the Christian ethic, personhood is related to the nature of God, who is understood in terms of community and inter-relationship.[41]:1 Within this view, the nature of moral community is not limited to a community of equals: humans are not equal to God yet have community with him.[41]:319 On this basis, Stanley Rudman argues that animals should be included in the moral community without being required to be regarded as persons.[41]:339 He says that, based on convictions which include the future transformation and liberation of all creation, a Christian view is obligated to take animal welfare seriously.[41]:319 Therefore, he concludes that the Christian ethic sees an emphasis on animal welfare as a better approach than the use of concepts of personhood and divine rights for addressing inhumane treatment of animals.[41]:319
![Sermon of the Beatitudes by James Tissot depicts Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Old Covenant and summarized his ethical teachings. Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[1]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Sermon_of_the_Beatitudes_%28La_sermon_des_b%C3%A9atitudes%29_-_James_Tissot.jpg/520px-Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Sermon_of_the_Beatitudes_%28La_sermon_des_b%C3%A9atitudes%29_-_James_Tissot.jpg)
