| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The source for Christian ethics is God. To the extent that we are able to understand Him and His nature, we will have a clear basis for all types of morality. However, before ending the paper, there are other considerations to cover.
The main sticking point here has to do with how we may know God. To this I answer that we may know God through two means-- natural or general revelation, and special revelation. Subsequently, we will have to ask also how that knowledge should be translated into moral understanding. This latter question becomes a discussion of hermeneutics.
According to Paul, there are things that can be known about God from, "that which has been made". Such insight includes knowledge of God's, "invisible attributes and divine nature." Furthermore, these things are "clearly seen". (Rom. 1:20) This testimony is echoed elsewhere in the Bible as well.1
Finally, Paul says that God has made these same things "evident within" all men. Thus, even one who was physically blind would still have recognizable features of his own make up that would suggest not only the existence of God, but key aspects of His nature as well.2 Therefore, man is "without excuse", and will be judged according to that law which is "written on their hearts," (Rom. 1:20;2:15).
These passages along with several parallels lay the basis for the idea of "natural law". Natural law is that portion of true morality that can be deduced from the basic features of the created order, and our own personalities.3
It is the position of most pre-millennial thinkers that natural law is an adequate basis for societal law making.4 I would agree. Limiting legislation to instituting laws that are in harmony with natural law has distinct advantages. It leaves the maximum amount of personal freedom, while safeguarding the basic rights of the weak and the minorities. It also permits the existence of a pluralistic society, unlike a society which attempts to pattern itself on the Old Testament civil law. Finally, it does not need to confuse the clear distinctions between the old and new covenants. As Kaye (who speaks from a reformed perspective) admits,
...one is forced to say that the New Testament contains no consideration of the ordering of society as a question in its own right.
And in his conclusion says,
...the New Testament gives us no direct answer to the question of how society should be ordered.5
This being the case, those who would find a biblical basis for ordering society invariably end up in the Old Testament, adducing principles that are not applicable to the current situation.6 It is better to base societal laws on natural law, which in turn is based on general revelation.
When turning to the Bible itself, we are able to go further in the area of ethics. Instead of only devising laws for society, we can begin to speak of a fuller morality that is suitable for the lives of those who admit that they follow Christ.
Within the Bible, this author is convinced that there are fundamental differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament which must be born carefully in mind. On the other hand, it is the nature of God Himself that ultimately forms the basis for all morality, and He has not changed at all. This means that it is necessary for the interpreter to determine whether a given passage embodying rules for behavior is reflecting the nature of God, or a special situation or covenant which may or may not directly apply today. This question will be examined further in the next section.
At this point it is necessary to respond to claims made by some that other sources can be avenues of knowing God and morality. Particularly, other religious authorities past and present, or perhaps, the flow of history.
It is the view of this author that there can only be one final source of special revelation. In the end, all other truth claims will be judged by that source, or, there will be an inability to judge at all, leading either to some form of relativism, or arbitrary moral authority. On this point, I would find that Longenecker's belief in the progressive understanding of truth in the theology of the church is very problematic.7 It is very difficult for me to see the progression in understanding during the course of church history that Longenecker refers to.
Of all areas of theology, ethics is the one area which seems to offer the most promise in finding a progression of some sort. The church was, after all, involved in the abolitionist movement, and more recently in agitating for the rights of the poor and women. However, on closer examination, we find that there are two counterbalancing facts that must be weighed before accepting this tempting conclusion.
First, in all of the areas mentioned above, only a small portion of the church was involved on the right side of the issues. In each area, there were (and are) many theologians who have argued the opposite side. Often the wrong ones were in the majority. If this is so, how can such a standard as the church be of any use in determining ethics? If we answer that the theologians must be measured by the Bible to see if they are right, then we have returned to the single source of moral authority. What then was gained by ever suggesting a second source in the first place?
Secondly, once a second source of knowledge is put forward, it will either tend to replace the Bible in the sense that the second authority becomes a grid through which we interpret Scripture, or it will dwindle in importance as we realize that every assertion of the second source must be measured by the Bible. We see examples of both of these possibilities in the history of the church as well as the modern scene.
From history, it is possible to argue that most of the great religious movements have stumbled when they began to view the findings of their founder(s) as a second source of spiritual knowledge. Thus, the Roman Catholics view canon law as a second authority, but in fact it has become the final authority, since the Bible must be interpreted by it. The reformed frequently refer to various catechisms and confessions, and tend to understand the Bible in light of those sources. Many Lutheran laymen study Luther and know his views better than they do the Bible.
Of course, no one can say they come to the Bible with no system of some sort already in mind. However, it is my view that this is an unfortunate element of subjectivity based on the fall of mankind which good hermeneutics are designed to minimize.
The best use of the discipline in history of interpretation should be strictly for comparison and stimulation of further thought. It would be hazardous in the extreme in my view, to suggest that the history of interpretation represents a progression analogous to the progressive revelation found in the Bible.8 Rather I think the history of interpretation represents a cycle, with periodic returns to a biblical position, followed by regression into confusion. The only way to tell which eras were more or less faithful to the truth is to compare their doctrine to the Bible. That being the case, there seems to be no point in viewing their teaching both as that which is measured, and that which it is measured by.9
In conclusion then, I find it impossible to admit that there is any source of special revelation other than the Bible itself. Other sources may help us check our reasoning to see if we have properly interpreted the Word.
Contact Dennis with a comment or question
Return to the Ethics table of contents
