Skip to main content

Christian Ethics 101

Theologian John Frame in his excellent large book The Doctrine of the Christian Life presents an approach to ethics that has been very useful to me in how I analyse difficult moral questions. Frame says that "ethical judgement involves the application of a norm to a situation by a person".  When we have a problem there are three pieces of information we need to reach an informed ethical judgement : the situation, the Word of God, and person with the problem. These are summarised in the triangle of ethics below
The situational perspective examines the situation or problems. It asks, "what are the best means of means of accomplishing God's purposes?". That is, how can we take the present situation and change it so that more of God's purposes are achieved? Here we explore the consequences of our actions. We ask, "if we do this, will it enhance the glory of God?". Will it please God in the end?

The normative perspective  focuses on the Word of God (the Bible). It is the standard for our decisions. Our purpose is to determine our duty, our ethical norm or our obligation. So we bring our problem to the Bible and ask, "what does Scripture say about this situation?". 

The existential perspective focuses on the ethical agent, the person(s) who iss trying to find out what to do. From this perspective, the ethical question becomes, "How must I change if I am to do God's will?". Here the focus is inward, examining our heart's relationship to God. It deals with our holiness and inner character. 

These three perspectives are interdependent. We can't understand the situation fully until we know what the Bible teaches and until we know understand our own role in the situation. We can't understand ourselves fully, apart from the Bible or apart from the situation that is our environment. And we don't understand the Bible unless we can apply it to situations and to ourselves. Hence these are "perspectives" not "parts". 

To illustrate. Suppose someone comes and asks us - is it okay for Christians to go on strike? The first question we must ask is, "what is meant by striking?". We also want to know why do these people want to strike? Who are the players involved? What is driving them? What is their motive? How much information do they posses about their decisions?  

The second question is what does Scripture say about situation? As we move to look at the Bible we may find aspects of our situation also clarified. We may find our "motive" perhaps is wrong. Scripture may throw up other dimensions to striking we have not considered - for example we may conclude that it is us who are responsible due to our sins for the situation. 

The third question is what should be our response? Depending on the interplay between our situation and the Scripture study, we may reach various conclusions - convicting us to respond to God accordingly. 
Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2013
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I am what I am by Gloria Gaynor

Beverly Knight closed the opening ceremony of the Paralympics with what has been dubbed the signature tune of the Paralympics. I had no idea Ms Knight is still in the singing business. And clearly going by the raving reviews she will continue to be around. One media source says her performance was so electric that "there wasn’t a dry eye to be seen as she sang the lyrics to the song and people even watching at home felt the passion in her words" . The song was Gloria Gaynor's I am what I am . Clearly not written by Gloria Gaynor but certainly musically owned and popularized by her. It opens triumphantly: I am what I am / I am my own special creation / So come take a look / Give me the hook or the ovation / It's my world that I want to have a little pride in / My world and it's not a place I have to hide in / Life's not worth a damn till you can say I am what I am The words “I am what I am” echo over ten times in the song. A bold declaration that she
Post a Comment
KEEP READING →

Inconsistency of Moral Progress

If morality, if our ideas of right and wrong, are purely subjective, we should have to abandon any idea of moral progress (or regress), not only in the history of nations, but in the lifetime of each individual. The very concept of moral progress implies an external moral standard by which not only to measure that a present moral state is different from an earlier one but also to pronounce that it is "better" than the earlier one.  Without such a standard, how could one say that the moral state of a culture in which cannibalism is regarded as an abhorrent crime is any "better" than a society in which it is an acceptable culinary practice? Naturalism denies this. For instance, Yuval Harari asserts: "Hammurabi and the American Founding Fathers alike imagined a reality governed by universal and immutable principles of justice, such as equality or hierarchy. Yet the only place where such universal principles exist is in the fertile imagination of Sapiens, and in th
Post a Comment
KEEP READING →

The Shame of Worldly Joy

Only a Christian can be joyful and wise at the same time, because all other people either rejoice about things that they should be ashamed of (Philippians 3:19) or things that will disappear. A Christian is not ashamed of his joy, because he is not joyful about something shameful. That is why the Apostle Paul in [2 Corinthians 1:12] defends his joy. He says, I don’t care if everyone knows what makes me happy, because it is the ‘testimony of my conscience.’ He means, let other people can be happy about base pleasures that they are afraid to admit; let other people rejoice in riches, fame, or popularity; they can be happy about whatever they want, but my joy is different. ‘I rejoice because of my conscience.’ A Christian has a happiness that he can stand by and prove. No one else can do that. They will feel embarrassed and guilty if their happiness is found in something that is outside of themselves. They cannot say, ‘this is what makes me happy’. But a Christian has the approval of his
Post a Comment
KEEP READING →