Stan Grenz tells the story of Charlie Brown sitting comfortably in his easy chair when he hears a noise in the kitchen. Checking it out, he catches Snoopy raiding the refrigerator. “Hey, what are you doing?” he asks. Then he pulled out his Bible and read aloud from Exodus, “Thou shall not steal!”
Snoopy, being knowledgeable in the scriptures replied, “Deuteronomy says thou shall not muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain.” He then slipped away with an arm load of food and resumed a comfortable position on his doghouse. Charlie Brown opened his Bible and reread the verse Snoopy quoted. Realizing what happened he hollered, “You are not trampling out the grain!” Snoopy replied with a mouth full of food, “I know but it got me out the back door!” (The Moral Quest, page 95)
Like Snoopy many have used (misused) the Bible to justify their action. Most of us would agree that Christian ethics rests upon the traditions of the Bible and yet how do we keep from using it to “let ourselves out the back door” ethically/morally? I propose we focus on the life and teachings of Jesus. I believe that one way we can shut the back door to the ethical misuse of scripture is to allow the words in red to “upstage” other passages.
What say you? Do you think this would suffice in leveling the ethical playing field among Christians? Could the behavior and words of Jesus serve as the sole ethical articles for church leaders to follow? I would like to hear your thoughts…
Thanks for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ethical "isms"
In the field of ethics there are many “isms” one can study. Permit me to mention two of them and please tell me what influence you think they have on contemporary Christian ethics. Again, the discussion thread for this week is centered on pastoral ethics. Specifically today I am wondering “why or how” a church leader can justify doing the opposite of what they said they would never do. Or how they can justify committing the very same act they condemned others in their profession for doing?
Now for the “isms.” Heirarchicalism is when one arranges their ethical principles according to priority so when conflict occurs they simply suspend one rule for another. Some refer to this process as situational ethics. Possibly this is why some church leaders will say, “I will never do what so and so did” only to turn around and do the same thing that “so and so did” because in their mind they were wronged, lied to, etc., and that served as justification for the action.
Another “ism” is ethical egoism. This “ism” declares that “each person’s sole moral obligation is to advance the agenda of one’s own welfare or to act in a manner so as to bring about the greatest amount of good over evil for yourself and sympathizers” (Grenz, The Moral Quest, page 34). Again, maybe some of the unethical behaviors of pastors/leaders saying one thing and doing another is intrinsically justified by reasoning the other camp is “evil or sinful,” thus I have a spiritual/moral obligation to defeat evil at all costs. Could this also serve as their license for using divisive words and actions and for ignoring prior covenants, commitments and convictions?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject? Do you see how these two “isms” may play a role in contemporary Christian ethics? Thanks again for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
Now for the “isms.” Heirarchicalism is when one arranges their ethical principles according to priority so when conflict occurs they simply suspend one rule for another. Some refer to this process as situational ethics. Possibly this is why some church leaders will say, “I will never do what so and so did” only to turn around and do the same thing that “so and so did” because in their mind they were wronged, lied to, etc., and that served as justification for the action.
Another “ism” is ethical egoism. This “ism” declares that “each person’s sole moral obligation is to advance the agenda of one’s own welfare or to act in a manner so as to bring about the greatest amount of good over evil for yourself and sympathizers” (Grenz, The Moral Quest, page 34). Again, maybe some of the unethical behaviors of pastors/leaders saying one thing and doing another is intrinsically justified by reasoning the other camp is “evil or sinful,” thus I have a spiritual/moral obligation to defeat evil at all costs. Could this also serve as their license for using divisive words and actions and for ignoring prior covenants, commitments and convictions?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject? Do you see how these two “isms” may play a role in contemporary Christian ethics? Thanks again for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Five Lies Contemporaries Love
Okay, maybe I am obsessed with the topic of ethics this week and searching all the literature I can find on the subject but I think I found a real gem here. It is called the “Five Lies Contemporaries Love” by John MacArthur (Heartcry!, issue 45, 2009).
One, Life is random. We are all products of evolutionary chance – no purpose, no creator, no accountability. No one made us, we have no reason, and that is why we are free in this random world to do what we want.
Two, Truth is relative. No absolutes, no standards. Ethics can be changed if you have enough clout, power and persistence but there is no absolute truth. We are all free to possess our own truth and demand and to demand the freedom to live our lives according to our own truth which is our own invention.
Three, People are basically good. If they go bad, someone else is to blame. Somebody else abused them. They lack self-esteem. They have psychological problems based upon environmental failures. But people are basically good. “I’m a good person.”
Four, Everyone can change their own life. Get control, take charge, become the person you want to be. You have the power to be whatever you want to be. That’s the biggest lie ever: “You can be everything you want to be.’ There are certain things you can’t ever change. You cannot do anything you want to do, that’s ridiculous. But that fits the mantra of this maniacal kind of freedom in a sin saturated culture.
Five, The Goal of life is self-satisfaction. You hear people say, “This is who I am, take it or leave it, and I am happy who I am.” And you want to say, “Well, we wish you weren’t; just go somewhere else.”
This behavior sounds a lot like the life ethic of Immanuel Kant which can be summed up in one imperative: “Always do the act that is motivated by the sincere belief that what you are doing is the right thing to do…” (The Moral Quest, Grenz, pg. 31). What would be the ethical statement of contemporary Jesus I wonder? What say you?
Thanks for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
One, Life is random. We are all products of evolutionary chance – no purpose, no creator, no accountability. No one made us, we have no reason, and that is why we are free in this random world to do what we want.
Two, Truth is relative. No absolutes, no standards. Ethics can be changed if you have enough clout, power and persistence but there is no absolute truth. We are all free to possess our own truth and demand and to demand the freedom to live our lives according to our own truth which is our own invention.
Three, People are basically good. If they go bad, someone else is to blame. Somebody else abused them. They lack self-esteem. They have psychological problems based upon environmental failures. But people are basically good. “I’m a good person.”
Four, Everyone can change their own life. Get control, take charge, become the person you want to be. You have the power to be whatever you want to be. That’s the biggest lie ever: “You can be everything you want to be.’ There are certain things you can’t ever change. You cannot do anything you want to do, that’s ridiculous. But that fits the mantra of this maniacal kind of freedom in a sin saturated culture.
Five, The Goal of life is self-satisfaction. You hear people say, “This is who I am, take it or leave it, and I am happy who I am.” And you want to say, “Well, we wish you weren’t; just go somewhere else.”
This behavior sounds a lot like the life ethic of Immanuel Kant which can be summed up in one imperative: “Always do the act that is motivated by the sincere belief that what you are doing is the right thing to do…” (The Moral Quest, Grenz, pg. 31). What would be the ethical statement of contemporary Jesus I wonder? What say you?
Thanks for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ethics and Sin
Is Being Unethical Sin?
I am reading two books on ethics, “Readings in Christian Ethics” by Clark and “The Moral Quest” by Grenz. Both begin by attempting to define ethics and morality. Grenz says that “Christian ethics is the study of how people ought to live as informed by the Bible and Christian conviction” (23). The etymology of the word “ethic” is Greek, “Ethica or etheos meaning what relates to character” (23). The origin of morality on the other hand is Latin, “Moralis, meaning custom or usage” (23).
It seems there is a slight difference between the use of morality and ethics. Morality focuses on the living out of one’s beliefs whereas ethics hones in on the study of why beliefs are right, wrong or immoral. The question I raise for discussion is, “When does sin occur?” Does sin occur when ethics are established outside of a Biblical framework and universal Christian conviction? Or is sin the act of not being true to ones convictions?”
The post modern era in which we live seems to struggle with normative or “universal” ethics and the church is no different. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, it seems some clergy struggle with locating true north on the moral/ethical compass these days. What is the universal Christian conviction or standard for clergy or Christians in general today? Should there be one and who should establish it? I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
I am reading two books on ethics, “Readings in Christian Ethics” by Clark and “The Moral Quest” by Grenz. Both begin by attempting to define ethics and morality. Grenz says that “Christian ethics is the study of how people ought to live as informed by the Bible and Christian conviction” (23). The etymology of the word “ethic” is Greek, “Ethica or etheos meaning what relates to character” (23). The origin of morality on the other hand is Latin, “Moralis, meaning custom or usage” (23).
It seems there is a slight difference between the use of morality and ethics. Morality focuses on the living out of one’s beliefs whereas ethics hones in on the study of why beliefs are right, wrong or immoral. The question I raise for discussion is, “When does sin occur?” Does sin occur when ethics are established outside of a Biblical framework and universal Christian conviction? Or is sin the act of not being true to ones convictions?”
The post modern era in which we live seems to struggle with normative or “universal” ethics and the church is no different. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, it seems some clergy struggle with locating true north on the moral/ethical compass these days. What is the universal Christian conviction or standard for clergy or Christians in general today? Should there be one and who should establish it? I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for stopping by!
---------
Adrian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)