Christian Ethics and Contemporary Issues

by Frank Ellis –

It is not enough for a Christian to simply add a few religious observances to an otherwise non-Christian life. We strive as Christians to have a comprehensive, consistent worldview which we apply to all areas of life. When speaking from the ivory towers of theology or philosophy, we must be sure that our theory translates into application. It is not enough to know what to do: we must act upon Truth. What is it that makes Christian ethics Christian, and how does that look in real life decisions? To see Christian ethics in action, three major ethical arenas may be evaluated: economic, marital/sexual, and medical. Before dealing with specific scenarios in these subjects, it will be helpful to delineate some Christian principles that will be used in resolving the ethical dilemmas that arise. Above all, Christian ethics appeals to God’s revealed will that has been shown to us through the special revelation of Scripture.

Christian Ethics and Economics

When we approach the subject of economics, a clear line can be drawn between the principles that drive a secular versus a Christian perspective. Whereas some may view money as intrinsically valuable and stockpile it for the mere enjoyment of seeing the coffers fill to overflowing, most people, regardless of spiritual condition, see money as an instrumental good, that is, something that is useful for what it can be employed to obtain. This gives us an ethical responsibility to determine how we may best use our resources. For the Christian, we operate under the biblical teaching that our money is the Lord’s, and we are granted the ability to use it for His purposes.¹ In 1 Chronicles 29:10-19, King David offers a prayer of dedication for the offerings made for the Temple. In this prayer, he affirms that the only reason the Israelites had anything to offer at all was that the Lord Himself had blessed them. God can rightly be said to own everything because without Him, we would not even have the ability to work or be successful to any extent.²

Understanding that all our money belongs to the Lord anyway, we apply a biblical worldview to our finances. We attempt to leverage our resources for the work of the kingdom rather than fulfilling immediate desires. One reason our country is in the current financial situation is that we have been financially myopic and spent everything we have (and then some) to increase our current comfort level rather than looking forward to how we are going to finance the rest of our lives, especially after we are unable to maintain our current level of income. The savvy, secular citizen will plan ahead by rationing his income to last until his life on earth is over. Operating within a Christian worldview, however, we must dole out our resources from a much larger perspective: not only must we prepare for eternal life after death,³ but we must realize that our true Source of income (and everything else worth having) is as unlimited as our future.

In Acts, we see this view played out in the early church.⁴ When we begin to learn the blessings that grace brings in the new covenant, all aspects of our lives are infiltrated and turned upside down. We no longer feel we have access to only what we earn, but that Jesus has provided for every part of our lives what we could never earn. We are so overwhelmed by grace that we no longer want to receive what we are able to earn on our own, nor are we content with giving what we ourselves have to offer; we have access to blessings in the kingdom that are so much better than we could ever give. In the early church, this new concept of grace translated to the members of the body selling everything they had and putting it in a common pot. The individual’s possessions were considered to belong to the whole church: anything needed was there for the taking with no sense of obligation.

This is theoretically such a good plan that even the anti-religious/athiest rulers have attempted to employ similar systems (i.e. Socialism and its kin). Unfortunately for these socioeconomic theories, we live in a fallen world. How long did it take for someone to take advantage of this system? Two sentences later, Ananias and Sapphira had already attempted to get undeserved admiration from the church by insinuating they had “gone all in” for the group when they had held back. The same problem occurs for the able-bodied worker when she realizes that only her needs will be met no matter how hard she works. Why would a person work harder than necessary for no apparent benefit to herself? Without the deep sense of community that membership in Christ’s body gives, we have shallow reasons, if any, for “taking one for the team.” Within the kingdom mindset, we can give everything we will ever get and still come out smelling like a rose because God’s grace has completely overwhelmed our lives.

How does this principle (i.e., treating our monetary resources as owned by God and not ourselves) translate into an ethical treatment of economic action today? Many applications can be made, but we shall look at three. First, one way the world will know we are disciples is by the way we love each other.⁵ When we help provide for the physical needs of our brethren, we show the world that we are truly in a loving relationship with each other. Not only does this provide a powerful evangelistic witness, but it also provides for the nurture and building up of faith within the church. We also have explicit directions in James 1:27 to see to it that the widows and orphans have what they need. This is extended to others who are in need as well.⁶ It is unthinkable to be a member of the body and see someone in want without taking care of his needs.

Second, our worth is not to be found in our bank statement but in the statement of love that Jesus proclaimed on the cross. The fact that we alone have been created in God’s image makes us more valuable than the rest of creation. For Jesus to impute all of His righteousness to us and take all of our unrighteousness upon Himself gives us more worth than we could ever accomplish on our own. One way of showing thanks for this gift is the giving of ourselves to those in need. If you find yourself experiencing God’s provision through the help of another Christian or a ministry, do not think of yourself as a burden or an unimportant part of God’s kingdom; it is through providing for your needs that the giver is able to show his love for both you and God. If you are able to help others in the future, you will be in a better position to understand what they are experiencing and can provide more than mere physical help.

Third, when it comes to business, we must be careful to remember that we carry the Lord’s name with us. What we invest in and how we do business speak to the world about our religious beliefs. If we invest in businesses that make their money by providing services or products that are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, we send the message that our religion is a private matter that does not extend to that part of our world. And the curious observer may come to believe that Christianity, since it does not extend to our financial activities, need not extend to other publicly accessible areas of our lives either. If we run a business, we must not succumb to the temptations that the business world provides. Such things as “creative bookkeeping” or dishonest salesmanship do not send the message that we are true servants of the kingdom.

Christian Ethics and Sexuality

When we speak to non-Christians about marital or sexual ethics, we often get responses such as “Keep your morals out of my bedroom” or “Wow, that’s a quaint view of marriage.” When seeking to respond to such challenges to biblical teaching on marriage and sex, we may be embarrassed to point to the actions of Christians today. In fact, we have research available which shows that there is little or no difference in the divorce rate between Christians and non-Christians.⁷ Surely, there are multiple issues which account for this lack of difference, but among them is the fact that, though we have been saved by grace, we are not fully sanctified yet and have trouble living out what we know to be true. This is hardly an indictment on the Christian principles, however, because most of those who retain their Christian beliefs post-divorce still agree that the biblical concepts of being committed to one’s spouse for life and being faithful within that marriage are best.⁸ All kinds of emotional and physical risks are avoided by following the biblical plan for sex and marriage.

What exactly does the Bible say about the marriage relationship? To start at the beginning, during the creation accounts God gave an initial statement of how He designed the human male/female relationship to be. In Genesis 2:18-25, we see that Adam was not complete without a suitable helper. When God designed the perfect helper for Adam, He made Eve, a female with whom Adam was physically joined; she was formed by God from Adam’s rib. The application of this occurrence follows in verses 24-25. When the time comes to marry, the man should leave his “father and mother” and then be joined to his wife as one flesh. In this situation, we see the family consisting of a father, a mother, and their progeny. The son marries a woman, at which point they may begin having sex which results in procreation. This cycle was to be repeated in order to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”⁹Without this longstanding concept of marriage, society cannot continue to exist as a safe environment for the care and nurture of future generations.

Another strong positive statement concerning the sexual relationship within marriage is to be found in the Song of Solomon. Before the wedding day which takes place in 3:5-11, we see Solomon and his soon-to-be bride making sure to keep themselves pure until they are officially married.¹⁰ Afterward, much pleasure and delight is seen to occur as the sexual relationship is introduced in its proper context.

We have seen some positive statements of how God does want marriage and sex to look, but are we merely offering an argument from silence against what God does not include in the normal heterosexual relationship?¹¹ On the contrary, there are indeed negative statements concerning what God declares to be sinful expressions of sexuality. Leviticus 18 has severe words for those who would practice sexual perversion. Among the actions listed here are incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. These practices are said to have defiled the inhabitants of the land of Canaan and caused the land to “spew out” the offenders. The Israelites were threatened with the same punishment if they should take up these practices. No statement is made that special revelation was given to the Canaanites to forbid them to perform these sexual actions. It seems they were expected to understand that such behavior was inappropriate and judgment-worthy.¹² If it is the case that the Canaanites were expected to know their actions were sin (see Romans 1), then this is a moral intuition that is assumed to be common among all societies. Any refusal to accept these moral standards is simply a suppression of God’s truth.¹³

As an example of one sexual behavior that is unbiblical, let us look at homosexuality. What we have seen above shows the one type of sexual act God calls good is that which takes place between a married couple. For the sake of argument, we will view marriage in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., one man and one woman).¹⁴ This obviously rules out any possibility of a homosexual act being acceptable according to biblical standards since sex is permitted only within marriage. Moreover, the statement found in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (NASB) seems to leave little room for misconstrual. Add to this Romans 1:24-27, and we have a clear understanding that the Bible does not approve of homosexual acts.¹⁵

We have further evidence outside of Scripture which points to the immoral status of homosexuality. One such piece of evidence comes from the concept of human flourishing. As Christians, we desire to function properly (i.e., as God created and intended us to do). Even the non-Christian will agree that it is desirable to not only act as we are intended to act (which will mean very different things within opposing worldviews), but also that we should seek to flourish in our pursuit of living the best possible life. When we consider the sexual act for which our bodies were designed (or for which they were naturally selected to evolve), we must admit that the organs with which we find ourselves are most adept at the type of sexual act which tends to produce children (i.e., the heterosexual, procreative act). If we intend to flourish, we should take the course of action for which we are most suited and bypass any others. Our bodies were not designed for homosexual activity. Even if we accept an evolutionary explanation for the apparent design of our bodies, we are left wanting an explanation of how homosexuality survived the natural selection process. If there is a physical component to the cause of homosexuality (e.g., a gene), then how could this be passed from one generation to the next if the gene causes the whole organism to act in ways which eliminate the possibility of reproduction? If there is not a physical cause of homosexual behavior, then we are left with the result that the homosexual has learned his or her sexual orientation and could have learned the one that fits with the body that he has. Still, the tendency toward this type of behavior would have been shunned for millions of years because it proves to be ill-fitted for reproduction.

Even if we allow that there is a genetic disposition toward homosexual behavior, this does not lead to the conclusion that it is moral for the person to act in this way. (This is the common is/ought fallacy.) Another unethical behavior that has been attributed to a genetic disposition is kleptomania. Even if a person does have a genetically heightened tendency to shoplift, it does not mean that stealing is an acceptable behavior for these persons. We all have tendencies toward certain categories of sin, but this does not relieve us of the responsibility to resist the temptations to which we are most drawn, even if there is a physical reason for our higher level of temptation.

For these reasons and others, the homosexual lifestyle is to be considered immoral, especially for the Christian who has access to divine revelation. What should our response be to the homosexual with whom we come into contact? We have no more right to shun him than others have to shun us for the sins we commit. There are no sins which Christ is unable to cover. At the same time, as with any sin, if there is a persistent lack of repentance, we must continue to share the gospel to the sinner and show him that his lifestyle is inconsistent with what our response to grace should be. Our response should be to call sin what it is and speak against the sin of homosexuality as well as our own sins while continuing to share the gospel with the sinner.¹⁶

Christian Ethics and Medical Issues

Finally, medical ethics is a burgeoning area of study these days. With such a sharp increase in available medical technologies comes an equally dramatic increase in ethical dilemmas. With the advances in our ability to offer organ transplants has come the dilemma of deciding to whom we should give the limited resources of available organs. Some old questions persist or are reapplied, while new ones are formulated with the rise in new technologies. How should the terminally ill be treated? The human fetus? The geriatric patient? When does life begin? When can we experiment on human cells? The questions are seemingly endless. To give a brief taste of how the Christian should respond to these ethical matters, a few principles must be laid out, followed by brief discussions of two major issues in the field of bioethics/medical ethics.

Much argumentation in bioethics is centered on the concept of personhood. When is a human being considered to be fully human in an ethically relevant sense? As Christians, we will again appeal to Scripture to ascertain the biblical view of personhood. When human beings were created by God, we received a special attribute that other members of creation did not: we were created in God’s image¹⁷ and given life from His breath.¹⁸ There are many interpretations of what it means to be created “in God’s image,” but among them are the principles of having dignity, deserving respect, and receiving treatment above that given to animals and other members of creation.¹⁹ For these reasons, we often appeal to the “sanctity of life” in protection of at-risk, human life. How do these principles translate into the bioethics world? Philosopher Immanuel Kant taught that we should treat persons not as mere means to some further end but as ends in themselves. This of course means that we cannot simply use persons to achieve some research goal without their own interests (and consent) in mind. In keeping with the Hippocratic Oath, we should seek to do no harm but only attempt treatments that are beneficial to the health of the patient. One specific instance in which these principles come into play is the area of abortion.

Abortion is a long-standing hot topic around the ethics table. When we consider a Christian response to this subject, we must note what occurs when children are given to parents. The children do not arrive from a vacuum (or a stork, for that matter) but are given from God Himself. The biblical view of parenthood is that children are a blessing from the Lord,²⁰ and the first command given to mankind is to “be fruitful and multiply.” There are special ways that members of one’s own family should be treated; primarily, we are to care and provide for those within our family lest we be referred to as “worse than an unbeliever.”²¹We must ask ourselves, when we decide to terminate the life of a child who is too young and weak to even survive on her own, how can we consider ourselves morally upright?

The case is often made that the woman has a right to do with her own body what she wants. This statement is suspect for several reasons. One is that a person does not have the right to make himself a human suicide bomber precisely because that action results in harm to others who have an equally compelling right to life. The mother may have a right to do many things with her body, but when these decisions come into contact with the lives of others, her freedoms must be limited. While the mother may state that the fetus is a part of her body (i.e., not a separate person at this point), this is manifestly false. The fetus has a separate genetic code (half the father’s), may be the opposite gender (a male), and has a separate heart beat. In fact, the case can be made that the fetus is just as much a person as the mother or any other adult human being. Additionally, after the point of conception, there is no other non-arbitrary point at which we may begin to assign personhood to the fetus.²²

With President Obama’s reversal of George W. Bush’s limitation on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has come a renewed interest in the ethics of this medical technology. One misunderstanding within this debate involves the distinction between embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and adult stem cell research (ASCR). The popular media and political statements tend to equivocate on the general category of stem cell research by conflating the two types; the former requiring the death of a human person in the embryonic stage of development while the latter involves the use of cells which may be harvested without harm to the donor. Thus, many of the ethical problems which apply to abortion are also found in ESCR. A common plea for assent to ESCR comes from noting that the source of many of these embryos are leftover products of IVF (in vitro fertilization) which will simply be allowed to thaw and die anyway when the mother and father decide they are done with IVF. If the argument that these soon to-be-discarded embryos may be used for experimentation is granted, it seems to also follow that prisoners who are on death row could be experimented on as well. There is a common moral intuition that it is wrong to experiment on human beings regardless of how close to death they are or what their cause of death will be (think Jews in Nazi Germany). The key issue here is that it is immoral to cause the death of an innocent human being regardless of what benefit it may bring. To assume that the embryos are not human persons in order to argue for benefits which may be achieved is simply to beg the question.

Finally, to return to economics for a moment, from a simply pragmatic viewpoint, ESCR has not yielded a single cure or treatment for any major illness, while ASCR has been used to treat over seventy diseases/disorders.²³ What sense does it make to continue dumping funds into a research program that has not delivered on our investments while a similar, non-ethically problematic version is actually yielding positive results?

In conclusion, while many Christian ethical positions have been held by non-Christians for practical purposes, our ability to agree on ethical principles comes from an appeal to the standard of objective truths recorded in holy Scripture. Whereas the non-Christian has many options of ethical systems which appeal to consequences or constructed values which must be weighed by finite intellects, the Christian has a set of ethical instructions that have been revealed to us by One wise enough to design the world in which we have been created. There is no higher authority.

Frank Ellis (M.A. Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University) is adjunct professor of apologetics at Birmingham Theological Seminary.

Notes

¹ This may seem to bring up the same “no rest objection” that arises in discussing utilitarianism, but it really is acceptable to use the money God has allowed us to manage for the purpose of rest and relaxation, within reasonable limits. Let us not forget that God Himself gave us the example of resting on the seventh day. For a description of the “no rest objection,” see Pojman, Louis P. How Should We Live? (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005), 123. ²² 37.
³ Matt. 6:19-21.
⁴ Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35.
⁵ John 13:35, Matt. 25:35-40, Rom. 12:13, 1 John 3:17, etc.

⁷ See http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=B arnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170.
⁸ In most cases, the vows taken during second, third, etc. marriages are little changed from the ones taken in the first.
⁹ Gen. 1:28.
¹⁰ Song of Solomon 2:7 and 3:5.
¹¹ In other words, are we saying that simply because God does not mention other sexual acts in His description of marriage that these are wrong. ¹² This can be considered an argument from silence, but if we assume that God did give direct revelation to the Canaanites concerning these matters, they disobeyed a command that was broadly given across the region (to Egypt as well).
¹³ See Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 199-204.
¹⁴For a detailed argument against same-sex marriage, see Steven B. Cowan, “Why Same-Sex Marriage is a Bad Idea” Areopagus Journal 5:5 (Sept.-Oct. 2005): 20-25.
¹⁵ Attempts to get around these passages usually deny the authority or inspiration of Scripture. Some have argued that these were merely cultural situations which do not apply to us. Another alternative is that these passages refer to unnatural homosexual relations (i.e., ones which do not take place as a loving act between partners). See Richard D. Mohr. “Homosexuality and the Morality of Discrimination,” in Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy, ed. Francis J. Beckwith (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002), 630-631.
¹⁶ By “sharing the gosepl” here, I mean that we should share the implications of Christ’s work, His willingness to love us when we have nothing to offer, etc., not simply the gospel message offered at the initial point of salvation.
¹⁷ Gen. 1:26-27.
¹⁸ Gen. 2:7.
¹⁹ Though, of course, this is where animal rights groups will beg to differ.
²⁰ Ps. 127:3-5.
²¹ 1 Tim. 5:8.
²² For more on the personhood of the fetus see Gregory Koukl, “Only One Question: Compelling Answers to the Abortion Rights Challenge,” Areopagus Journal 1:4 (Oct. 2001): 11-17.
²³See http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ facts/treatments.htm; see also http://www. stemcellresearchfacts.com/media_myths.html.