| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When Christ was called on to identify the greatest laws in the Bible (Mt. 22:36-40), He did not refer to the Decalogue. Instead, He referred to the passages in Deut. 6:5, and Lev. 19:18 which included love of God and love of one's neighbor. The latter notion is also brought forward by Paul as the best way to understand the real intent of the Decalogue (Rom. 13:8-10).
Therefore the Decalogue, which is itself a collection of ethical principles, can be further summarized under the heading of Christian love. This imperative to sacrifice self for the glory of God and the well-being of others is very contentful and all-embracing. It includes the possibility of discipline in love, so that it may confront one another in love for his or her own good.24
Further than this, if we feel that the love principle should be applied in a way that is different than that done in the Bible, then the burden of evidence lies with the one who would change. Why would Paul feel that lying was not as loving as truth-telling, but another feels lying is justified? Perhaps if that one was named Rahab, she might be able to make a case (James 2:25). On the other hand there would be few such cases.
There are also other ethical principles that may not be directly derived from the love principle. Holmes argues that justice is also a major ethic, although this is not as clear to me.25 Justice can indeed be inferred from natural law, but is less evident as an emphasis for Christian living than love. The doctrine of equality of all social classes, sexes, and races (Gal. 3:28) would imply justice in the sense of equity, but this would probably not include the retributive aspects of justice, which are left to the civil authorities, or to God.26 Therefore, it may only be the positive aspects of justice in the sense of fairness that the Christian should pursue, thus linking it again with love.
The issue of prioritization in ethics is often just as important as arriving at the ethical principles in the first place. Examples abound of divergent groups whose practice and outlook are so different from each other that one could wonder if they are both referring to the same book when they cite the Bible.27 Yet, upon closer examination it is found that both groups hold essentially the same ethical views regarding the absolutes. The difference in these cases stem from the area of prioritization.
In some ways, prioritization is even more important than ethical methodology. This is because while methodology determines the correctness of what we say, prioritization determines what we actually do.
The same principlizing hermeneutic that leads away from particularistic nomism in the area of theory, should also lead to a strong position on prioritization in practice. Otherwise, no matter what our theory is, we will wind up with nomism again. The real loser in such a situation would again be the "weightier parts of the law" (Mt. 23:23).
Consider a teacher who forcefully argues that the heart of Christian integrity can be seen when a believer receives a letter with a stamp which is not canceled out. Will that believer re-use the stamp, or throw it away? Real Christian integrity, it is argued, will refuse to steal a value that was not paid for!
On close examination, no one can really refute this position with regard to whether it is morally right to steal. Unfortunately, both experience and the Bible show that this kind of fixation on the finer ethical details is usually indulged. Thus meaning, instead of a focus on the major issues, rather than in addition to it. Indeed, one must suppose that this is one of the underlying appeals of this school of thought. Christ certainly implied that it was in the case of the Pharisees. This is the practice He identified as "straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel" (Mt. 23:24).
This practice of majoring on the minors is one of the great themes in both the history of the church, and of the modern scene. Wesley, who said that he would not tell the smallest lie even in order to save the whole world from hell, was, in the view of most Christian analysts, guilty of gross misbehavior in his abortive marriage. The church has been infamous in most eras for insisting on painstaking compliance to unimportant details of personal "holiness" while saying nothing about cruel exploitation of other races and the poor.28
Return to the Ethics table of contents
Contact Dennis with a comment or question
Read on to the next section in Ethics
