Who am I to split hairs with great ethicists of our time or manipulate the semantics of their words to generate my own unique opinion or perspective? I am but a novice, marginally educated in such matters. Sure, I was reared to hold biblical, spiritual and moral standards in high regard. Via St. Ann Bartlett and Christian Brothers High School, my parents sent me through Catholic schools with that intent. Speaking of family, we also attended church and observed the traditional religious holidays as I grew up. Next, could I say truthfully I haven’t learned life lessons through the accumulation of experiences over the course of my life? Not a chance. Finally, I’d say it’s true as well I’ve been gifted with an analytical mind, although at times that seems more a curse than a blessing. At any rate, I certainly reason using my rational intellect when making decisions.
With that said, I make a different set of conclusions on roles played by Scripture, tradition, experience and reason than those reached by many Christian ethicists on the matter. For me, all related considerations begin and end with God’s Word. True, the aforementioned experts make the same contention, so let me draw the distinction clearly: I believe those other elements are of such lesser value than the Bible it would make more sense not to include them in these discussions, emphatically relegate them to secondary status or at least make critical clarifications about their use.
I won’t get into matters of apologetics, seeking to prove there is a God and that He is the God of the Bible. Nor will I cover pre-evangelism as it relates to the historicity of the Scriptures. I’ll assume common ground on those issues and begin with biblical content itself as the preeminent factor in my ethical grid. Then I’ll critique tradition, experience and reason as supposed sources in ethical decision-making and reframe them as mere illustrations of the varying degrees to which morality is applied.
Consider the words of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1).” Clearly, the perfect holy and moral standard existed before humanity and any of its correlating tradition, experience or reason. Further, mankind’s ethical decision-making capacity (as well as options and alternatives themselves) would not exist outside of God’s creative will, so it’d be quite illogical to conclude it could be actualized properly apart from it: “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you shall surely die (Gen 2: 16-17).’”
God gave not only the instruction to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but also the option to obey or disobey through the blessing of free will. Further, (if we presuppose the goodness of life) in warning of death He defined moral classifications for consequences of the choice they made. Most relevant, however, they had accumulated little to no tradition, experience or reasoning capabilities, so it shouldn’t be argued either was relevant in their ethical decision. As a matter of fact, this command presented Adam and Eve with their first ethical choice, so until then they never had performed moral reasoning. Continuing, its accepted throughout the Christian community God rarely has spoken audibly to His people since the Ascension as He did in the Garden and throughout the Old Testament, and it’s acknowledged He speaks to us now primarily through His written Scriptures. Regardless, His Word always has provided and defined the only perfect standard.
How is this relevant to the establishment and upkeep of my ethical grid? Am I to conclude the post-Eden development of societal culture (i.e. tradition), the passing of time (i.e. experience) or generations of man’s sin stained intellectualism (i.e. reasoning) has changed the unchangeable nature of God’s character or law? Moreover, sin entered a perfect world while man was spotless and in direct contact with Him, yet I am to conclude the fall’s devastating consequences improved man’s effectiveness in reliance on tradition, experience and reason for discernment in moral quandaries? I think not.
Throughout His Word, God tells us where wisdom is to be found. Consider the Psalms: “How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to Your Word (119:19),” David writes. Or look to Paul: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and become convinced of…and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:14).” Perhaps John says it best: “But if anyone obeys His Word, love for God is truly made complete in them (1 John 2:5).” Last, apply the eternal words of Jesus: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word that comes from the mouth of God (Matt 28:18).” Clearly, I am a fundamentalist Christian deontologist whose basic convictions stem from that subscription!
Having extolled the paramount role of the Scriptures, let’s note more pointedly God’s commands regarding it as our sole authority. As written in the Old Testament, God tells the Israelites: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you (Deu 4:2).” Proverbs echoes: “Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar (30: 6).” In the New Testament, we’re given the command and the consequences of rejecting it: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy on the scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in the scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Rev 2: 18-19).” I contend the answer to all ethical questions can be found in the Scriptures. Should we search cultural tradition, personal experience, or individual reason, we at least partially rely on tainted products of lost mankind and risk crossing over into sin.
Let’s talk specifically of tradition. Jesus condemns the Pharisees: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the handed down traditions of men…thus you nullify the Word of God (Mk 7: 8, 13).” This should especially concern our southern Bible-belt American Christians! John also emphasizes the completeness of God’s anointing and juxtaposes it against human teaching: “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you (1 Jn 2:26).” Paul makes a similar case: “What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided (1 Cor 1:12)?” The fact is “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God (Rom 3:10-11).” As a result, it would be a mistake to base our ethical decisions on the advice of any single individual, much less any particular community.
Next, let’s dissect the role of experiential considerations in ethics. Paul writes in Ephesians 4: 22-23, “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires.” A significant piece of any human’s experience was accumulated under his sinful “old self” and therefore brings no credible ethical decision-making reliability. “While we were yet sinners,” Paul writes, “Christ died for us (5:8),” but His death did not end our earthly imperfection. “But I see another law at work within me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am (Romans 7 23-24)!” Here, Paul emphasizes man’s ultimate lack of moral reliability even after being saved! Our sanctification continues until our death. As James puts it: “Let perseverance finish its work in you, so you may be mature and complete, lacking nothing (James 1: 4).”
Finally, let’s analyze the role of reason as a moral compass. Paul warns: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern in this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will (Rom 12: 2).” “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:5),” Paul writes. Again, the implications here are that our minds continually need to be renewed by Christ and re-triangulated on His Word alone in order to understand and live out God’s will. As a result, any pre-faith reasoning we think legitimate certainly is not so. Further, no human reasoning ever will be purely holy. We are not sanctified until our passing.
All of us have faced ethical decisions in our lives. What has tradition told us? Across the spectrum, considering family members, denominational affiliations, Christian brothers and sisters, friends, teammates, associates, etc. – any and all relevant tradition – there are opinions and perspectives from one extreme to the other. What one thinks, the other does not. What another believes, the other does not. If we ever found “the right” insight through these "sources," how would we know? More importantly, when someone (knowingly or otherwise) gives us unbiblical advice shrouded in loving counsel, how do we know? Sadly, too often we outsource our moral decision making to people close to us not because we revere them or respect their opinion, but because we selfishly seek comfort and support in our intentional or ignorant rejection of God's Word. In our choosing, we selectively use friends and traditions that defend whatever aims we already possess. Who are you hangin' with? How well do they know the Author and Creator of morality? How can you rightly interpret their feedback unless you first know the standard by which it should be judged?
What has our experience taught us? Most likely, the results are inconclusive. Any extent to which it seems to set a good trajectory for any new decision is likely consequence driven rather than ethically focused. "Last time I did A it resulted in X, so I will (or won't) do it again." This begs the questions: What makes something a "good" or "bad" decision? The results? So the end justifies the means? Can you always predict the outcome of a choice? Shouldn't we sometimes choose a route based on our values and virtues, even though we expect painful or negative consequences?
Has reasoning proved helpful? Isn't differentiating between thought and emotion very difficult in trying circumstances? Emotions flow from one extreme to the other and on a multitude of levels. When we distinguish a clear thought, we then must identify the legitimacy and applicability of it, hopefully after discerning whether it’s from the Lord or Satan. There again, as with tradition and experience, we're left with the question: What is the source?
I could say so much more about my ethical grid, drilling down into various moral obstacle courses I’ve navigated, including my broken marriage, my former Catholic traditions, my professional career experiences and more. I even could rank my biblically centered spiritual convictions, Christian and moral virtues, ethical principles, situational decision-making steps, etc. Be sure I’d include the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Greatest Command, the Great Commission, the Fruit of the Spirit and any number of additional Scriptural references. Suffice it to say, however, that any such list would be based completely on God’s Word. Admittedly, assigning comparative value to the multitude of biblical virtues and principles would not be easy, nor is making ethical decisions in moments wherein one must be chosen over the other or, on the flip side, the lesser of two evils must be identified and selected.
Regardless, the means by which even the experts measure the value of counsel that tradition, experience or reason provides is by comparing it with the Scriptures. In other words, God’s Word is the only actual source for sound ethical and moral decision-making; anything else is merely a sampling of thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc., some of which are imperfect at best in their well-intended reliance on a holy God and others that are inherently sinful on the outright.
No comments:
Post a Comment