CIM Technical Papers

                         A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ETHICS

Modern culture, no longer held together by a consensus world view, is in the
midst of an ethical crisis.  Today there is only a faint memory of biblical
norms.  Naturalistic philosophies have made it their goal to critique and
replace traditional values based on the Judeo-Christian world view.  Moral
values, say the humanists, are not based on the revelation of a transcendent
deity but are the product of human experience.1 Hence, Harvey Cox, liberal
theologian, and author of The Secular city, writes:

Secular man's values have been deconsecrated, shorn of any claim to ultimate
or final significance . . . They are no longer the direct expression of the
divine will.  They have become what certain people at a particular time and
place hold to be good.  They have ceased to be values and have become
valuations. . . .2

While secular philosophers deny the existence of true ethical absolutes, it
becomes apparent with closer scrutiny they cannot avoid making moral
statements that are asserted in an absolute way.  For instance, Joseph
Fletcher, the popularizer of "situation ethics," produces the absolute:
"One should always do the loving thing."3 Erwin Lutzer, in his book The
Necessity of Ethical Absolutes, demonstrates the impossibility of avoiding
moral absolutes in any system.4 The main problem with secular ethical
theories is that the absolutes they assert cannot avoid being arbitrary.
Completely sound arguments are not given as to why an assumed moral position
should be viewed as universally true.  If the universe does not have
theistic purpose, then why would it be good to keep one's promises or do the
"loving thing?" Is it so that mankind can survive?  Why would survival be
"good" if man were produced by a cosmic accident?  If man is only the
unintended end of unconcerned forces or "the phosphorescence of slime," as
Bertrand Russell proclaimed, a major question of our time then becomes "Why
should I be moral at all?"

Recent technological advances have, of course, heightened the moral crisis
of Western civilization, but its roots go far deeper.  The trouble began
when man assumed himself to be "the measure of all things." While this
statement was first uttered by Protagoras (5th century B.C.), it did not
become the clarion call of philosophy until the Enlightenment (18th
century).  From this period, philosophers began to view man as the starting
point, or the ultimate point of reference.5 These thinkers viewed man in the
same way they had once viewed God:  as the ultimate arbitrator, the one
having authority over issues of life and death.  Influential thinkers of the
Enlightenment fostered this idea until it became widespread, and today it
impacts whole cultures.

Thus, our crisis today is not one of immorality, but of amorality.  If
immorality were the problem, there would still be a standard left by which
to judge an action.  Amorality knows no universally applicable standard.
This causes great concern among educators and social planners in the West
where there remains a substance of personal freedom.  Where no strong
central government (or no strong cultural force) exists to enforce arbitrary
standards, how can a society function?  As one writer penned:  "The worst
problem for Europe is not inflation or unemployment, racism, or communism,
the Russians or the Americans.  The worst problem is a whole generation of
young people without values!"6

Because of the present moral crisis, one does not have to be a prophet to be
able to predict that Western civilization can only go in one or two
directions.  It can either return to the Judeo-Christian ethic which made
the West the great civilization it was, or it can move toward the tyranny of
totalitarianism.  Since we have already departed from our roots and are
moving toward the latter, it has been said, "The only thing that saves us
while we are in this transition is fear." What prevents a person today from
committing a crime?  Not a strong sense of right or wrong, but a fear of
getting caught!

What we are saying thus far is this:  starting from secular and humanistic
assumptions, no adequate ethical universal can be given.  It cannot come
from nature because the ethic practiced there springs from the law of "the
tooth and claw." It cannot come from the ballot box because the whims of the
majority can make anything moral.  Nor can it come from a naked use of civil
power (i.e., kings, parliaments, and high courts).  The reader would do well
to remember Francis Schaeffer's insightful admonition:  "If there is no law
to govern society then society (in one form or another) becomes the law."
Even if reason could give man an unequivocal standard, reason cannot give
man the ability to want to do what he construes as right (see Romans 7).
Stephen Toulmin admits this enigma in his book Reason and Ethics.7 He says,
"We can know the answers, but what we can't do is put our heart into it."
Why?  Perhaps the reason is the underlying belief that if life is absurd,
what difference do my actions make?  If man is absurd too, then what one
conceives as moral is also absurd.  In short, Dostoevesky probably was more
to the point when one of his characters says, "If there is no God, then
everything is permitted."8 For if there is no divine standard or future
impending judgment, then all the standards that men employ are arbitrary and
subject to change without notice.

Christians not only have a responsibility to point out the consequences of
such moral reasoning (2 Corinthians 10:4-5), but first and foremost, to
present a positive and living example of the kind of conditions Christian
moral values can bring about.  In the upper room discourse, Jesus said that
the way we treat our brethren would be the world's basis for judging whether
we were His followers.  (See John 13:34-35 and 1 John 3:11.) Simply stated,
the goal of Christian ethics is to do the will of God.  We find these
principles of conduct revealed in the Scripture.  It is the purpose of this
essay to show that the Christian ethical system is superior to the
relativistic ethical theories prevalent in societies today.  Our procedure
will be to demonstrate that the principles of conduct as revealed in
Scripture, when seen as a system, meet all the requirements for an adequate
ethical order for all men for all time.  (See Romans 14:18.)

             The Characteristics of an Adequate Ethical System

The following characteristics are those which both Christians and
non-Christians agree upon as being the essentials of a good ethical system:9
(1) standard, (2) justice, (3) a motive-dynamic, (4) guidance or a model,
(5) a relationship between rules and results, and (6) harmony.

1.  The Necessity of a Standard

Since ethics is the study of what makes an action moral or immoral, it is
essential for every ethical system to have a non-question-begging standard
by which all laws can descend, and by which all acts can be evaluated and/or
corrected.  There must be a Summum Bonum, or highest good, that will be
universally applicable to all cultures and generations.  It must be the
basis for and source of a non-arbitrary content to such words as "dignity,"
"honesty," and "love."

The need for such a transcendent absolute, or law above the law, can be
illustrated by what happened at the Nuremberg Trials of World War II
criminals.  Those accused appealed to the fact that they were only obeying
the laws of their own culture, and that they were not legally responsible to
any other.  Faced with this argument, Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for
the United States, appealed to permanent values and moral standards that
transcended life-styles, particular societies, and individual nations.
While he was not necessarily appealing to biblical norms in this trial, the
situation illustrates the need for a transcendent basis for moral values.
For example, God's commandment against murder was not just for the Jew.  It
transcends culture, and it transcends generations.  Murder is as wrong today
as it was in the Old Testament.

Christian ethics escape this problem of cultural relativity because it is
based upon the nature of God.  Good is what God wills in accordance with His
nature (see Mark 10:18).  God provides the moral patterns which apply to all
human behavior.

Because this standard is based upon God's holy nature, it is binding on all
people.  There is no standard beyond Him that can define moral conduct.
Christian ethics applies to everyone and is not merely a parochial
discipline for Jews and Christians.  God's moral revelation extends to all
generations.  God is the ultimate standard for human behavior.

Thus, Christian ethics asserts a Summum Bonum that escapes the problems of
cultural relativity.  The Christian God is transcendent and therefore, the
measure of all things, meaning that nothing (no standard) is beyond Him by
which anything, moral or otherwise, can be defined.  God's will, hence,
expresses His nature or essence.  (See Mark 10:18).

Naturalistic systems of ethics (which begin with a naturalistic state of
affairs) also claim a universal scope of some basic values such as love and
honesty.  However, non-Christian ethicists will generally conclude that
these laws or values can only be known imperfectly.  Arbitrariness and
subjectivity cannot be totally avoided.  Famed situationist, Joseph
Fletcher, has claimed universal applicability for his "love" principle, but
when it comes to defining "love," he leaves us hanging.  What a member of
the Irish Republican Army views as a "loving act" may be assessed
differently by a British soldier.  In contrast, the biblically-informed
Christian claims that Scripture reveals the content of love (agape).  (See
John 13, 1 Corinthians 13, and 1 John 4.)

In essence, the Christian says that a universal good cannot come from man, a
finite being.  It must be from a transcendent source.  Wittgenstein, an
important twentieth century philosopher, said as much:  "The sense of the
world must lie outside the world. . . . And so it is impossible for there to
be propositions of ethics. . . . Ethics is transcendental."10 As water does
not rise above its level, neither can ethics rise above human nature which
is its starting point.  Rousseau, however, said it best:

To discover the rules of society that are best suited to nations there would
need to exist a superior intelligence, who could understand the passions of
men without feeling any of them, who had no affinity with our nature, but
know it to the full, whose happiness was independent of ours, but who would
nevertheless make our happiness his concern, who would be content to wait in
the fullness of time for a distant glory, and to labour in one age to enjoy
the fruits in another.  Gods would be needed to give men laws.11

We thus conclude that ethics desperately needs these standards, and the only
one qualified to provide them is a transcendent god who really exists.  But
a transcendent ethical source is not the only criterion for an ethical
system.  We turn to a second.

2.  The Need for Justice

The potential to provide justice is a major test of any ethical system.
Many systems fail to measure up in this area.  To pass this test, ethical
law must provide justice in balanced measure at both individual and
corporate levels; it must function in the here and now, and it must be
final.

It is perhaps in this area that Christianity has the best record.  When
biblical principles have been applied properly, they have produced great
reforms.  The writings of Paul were revolutionary in their day ("There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. . ." Galatians
3:28).  As a result, many social reforms were instituted in the Roman world
during the first two or three centuries.  During the next several centuries
(Middle Ages), the situation was largely reversed, due to the fact that
biblical principles were either not applied or were grossly distorted.
Following the Reformation, and on into the modern era, many social reform
movements could again be cited which were primarily spear-headed by the
Christian church.  Among these were the repeal of slavery in England, prison
reform, child labor laws, the founding of the british Labor Party, the Red
Cross, the Salvation Army, Christian medical movements, and others.12

Perhaps one of the brightest spots in Christian ethics is the realization
that the individual is never in danger of becoming lost in the group.
Individuals are important and viewed as created in the very image of God.
No civilization before or since has emphasized the worth of the individual
and personal freedom as has Western culture.  This is undoubtedly due to its
Christian roots,13 and it is a well-established fact that the Second Great
Awakening had a profound influence on the writing of the United States
Constitution with its concern about the rights and freedoms of the
individual.14

But justice must not merely be here and now; it must also be final.  In the
face of the inadequacies and failures of even the best human justice,
biblical revelation assures us of a Last Judgment, where perfect justice
shall be rendered (the theme of the book of Revelation).  Our legal systems
suffer from human fallibility.  Absurdities are made of law, the guilty go
free, and the innocent are punished.  But the Scriptures promise a last
assize, when "there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or
hidden that will not be made known." (Luke 12:2-3).  The Judge on that day
will be at the same time omniscient and just, and the ambiguities and
failures of human justice throughout history will be totally and completely
rectified.  On that day, every individual will need the services of the
Divine Advocate.

As Kant observed moral injustice, he conjectured that a moral being must
exist.15 Without the possibility of a final accounting where injustices are
given their proper due, life would be absurd.  One death for Hitler seems
unfair; if only he could die six million deaths!  The Branch Davidian cult
in Waco, TX is a more contemporary example.  We all feel outrage that David
Choresh was not brought to trial.  His suicide was an easy way out.  We wish
for a more complete justice.  But we know and accept the fact that justice
is not complete in this life, and we hope and expect for it to be executed
some day.  With this assurance, even the presence of evil in the world
becomes less of a mere philosophical and theological problem, because we
know it is not being ignored.  The Christian ethic, therefore, provides
humankind with a surety that true justice will ultimately prevail and be
meted out.

3.  The Need for a Motive

Regardless of the sophistication of a moral system, it must also have within
it a motivating factor, or it will fail.  An ethical system may have the
loftiest of goals, but without a motivating factor, it fails as a system.
Knowing one's duty is to love one another, but lacking the desire to do so
does not fulfil the demands of the system.  People must want to behave in
moral ways.  Humanistic ethics is troubled by the problem, as evidenced in
the previous reference to Toulmin's Reason and Ethics.  A person may have a
goal of getting to New York.  He may have a shiny new car full of gas, but
if there is no battery to provide spark, he will not advance one inch.  It
is probably worthwhile to observe here that societies based on humanistic
ethics (as in communism) must rely very heavily on external stimuli and
controls to bring about desired behavior.  One might even ask:  if
communism's lofty goals are so beneficial to man, why do not all nations
clamor for that system of government?  Why must it nearly always be
forcefully imposed on people?

The question of motive, or will, always involves questions about human
nature.  Generally speaking, humanistic ethical theories see man's will as
being determined or shaped exclusively by his genetic inheritance and/or by
his environment--all external factors.  The Bible views man as spiritually
dead in transgressions and sin (Ephesians 2:1).  Due to his fallen sin
nature, man cannot do that which is totally right before God.  A sinner may
appear moral before men.  But before God, he always falls short.  However,
Christianity provides "a spark" which can intrinsically motivate a person
toward bringing honor and glory to God by doing His will.  This motivating
factor is the Holy Spirit, which is given to persons of faith as part of
God's gracious gift of redemption.  In Philippians 2:13, Paul writes, "For
it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good
purpose." (See also Romans 8:5-6).  This does not, of course, mean that the
believer infallibly lives up to God's standards of conduct.  What it does
mean is that he now has enablement, desire, and a potential to please God by
living up to His standard.  The change is internal, due to the spiritual
renewal of the heart.  Hence, the moral life of a Christian is a walk of
faith, relying on the power of the Holy Spirit to produce in him the fruit
of righteousness.  (See Romans 6:15-20 and Galatians 5:13-26).

There are several corollaries to the work of the Holy Spirit which motivate
the believer.  First, the new believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is
motivated by his love for God.  This is what makes the believer want to obey
God.  The apostle Paul spoke of being compelled by Christ's love (2
Corinthians 5:14), and the psalmist poetically wrote "as the deer pants for
streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God" (Psalm 42:1).

Secondly, the Holy Spirit's confirmation of God's love for the believer
motivates Him to become other-directed.  A person is unlikely to be
concerned about the needs of others if he has a poor self-image and can only
focus on his own needs.  Christians who come to know the nature of their
forgiveness, their unconditional acceptance before the Father, and their
acceptance into the Christian community, are then freer to focus on meeting
the needs of others.16

The believer is also motivated by external factors, such as receiving
blessings (for example, see Ephesians 6:3-4) and the promise of eternal
rewards.  But it should be noted here that good works must be done in
accordance with a proper attitude of faith.  Even an apparently unselfish
act, if done with the wrong attitude, will result in the loss of rewards (1
Corinthians 3).

4.  The Need for Guidance

A disadvantage of some secular ethical theories is that they are so
intricate and cumbersome, it is doubtful the average man in the street could
understand their principles, let alone implement them in daily life.
Further, some systems such as utilitarianism, which says you should do that
which will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, requires a
person to have more knowledge than it is possible for mere mortals to
possess.  Without this necessary information, how is it possible to
calculate what would be the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" as
required by this system?

It is one thing to have an ultimate principle in an ethical system, but it
is another matter to apply this in the many ethical decisions one must make
each day.  The Christian receives help from the Scriptures in which God's
will is revealed in hundreds of particular situations, as well as in broader
principles that can be applied to the gray areas.  Hence, the Christian's
success in the ethical life is partly predicated upon his knowledge of
scripture.

Not only are many precedents given in Scripture, but recorded in its pages
is the historical appearance of God's Son, the perfect model for Christian
ethics.  The Christian thus has an example of someone who experienced the
same flesh and blood phenomena as all men, but without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Our Lord Jesus not only told us how all the laws and commands in the
Scripture could be summarized ("Love the Lord you God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind. . . . And your neighbor as
yourself.) (Matthew, 22:37-38); He also gave us the supreme demonstration of
how to apply them.  Thus, the christian world view not only provides us with
the ethical garments of moral action; it also demonstrates how they are to
be worn.

5.  A Relationship Between Rules and Results

As a person studies ethical theories, he will note that there are basically
two approaches to ethics.  One centers in rules and the other in results.
Ethical systems that are rule-oriented are call deontological.  While those
that are result-oriented are called teleological.  To illustrate these two
concepts, let's take abortion as an example.  The person who is
rule-oriented will be largely concerned with principles such as the
sacredness of life and the command not to kill as he decides the issue.  The
one who is result-oriented will be concerned about unwanted children, loss
of sexual freedom, genetically malformed infants, and other issues.

Immanuel Kant was among those who believed that right was right, regardless
of the result.  He believed that the rightness of an act did not depend at
all on the value of its consequences.  In order to know whether an act is
right or wrong, we need only see whether it is in accordance with a valid
moral rule.  For Kant, a valid rule was determined by deductive reasoning.
One should ask himself, "What would happen if my actions became a universal
rule?" If the result would be destructive, it would not be a good rule.
Valid rules are determined on the basis of what could consistently be
universalized and, if followed, would treat other human beings as ends,
rather that as means.17 Kant seemed well aware of the importance of motive
in ethical theory.  To be a good man, one must not only do the right thing,
but do it with the right motive or with the conviction that an act is right
in itself.

A teleological ethic is concerned only with results or consequences.  The
good is determined solely on the basis of results.  Usually, in teleological
ethics, the end in view is to do that which will maximize pleasure or
minimize pain for the greatest number.  "Pleasure" is defined in different
ways by different theorists of this position.

Both of these views of determining the good have some helpful points and
some that are weak.  Ideally speaking, we believe a good ethical system must
have a balanced relationship between rules and results.

An extreme emphasis on rules or duty will lead to pharisaism, as recorded in
the New Testament.  Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their emphasis on duty
alone (see Mark 3 where Jesus asked them if it was lawful to do good or evil
on the Sabbath).  Blind duty can lead to a state of being uncompassionate.
There are many cases in war (e.g., My Lai in the Vietnam war) where blind
obedience to duty brought great evil.

On the other hand, relying only on results is also not capable of preventing
evil acts.  Strictly speaking, only an omniscient god could be a
utilitarian, because only this kind of being could know all the results of
an action.  Not only is it difficult for a mere mortal to calculate the
consequences of an action, but utilitarianism fails to honestly address
man's motives in his ethical decisions.

For the Christian, the anticipated results of an action can never, nor
should they ever determine what is right.  Right is based on the character
of God, and the Christian trusts God concerning the results (Romans 8:28).
However, this does not mean that Christians totally ignore results.
Everything we do should be done with a view of bringing the best results
possible, within the bounds of the ethical duties that God has revealed to
us.  As in the abortion controversy just mentioned, the Christian should
demonstrate a compassionate concern to right the situation that makes
abortion desirable without sacrificing the principles of the sacredness of
life.  Also, sometimes the anticipated result might help us discover which
ethical norm or principle to apply when two or more ethical norms appear to
conflict (see the following discussion of the problem of conflicts).  So,
while good results do not prove that an action was good, it is reasonable
for the Christian to assume, that by following the rules, in the end, good
will result.  Hence, a comprehensive ethic will maintain a relationship
between rules and results.  The Christian should concern himself with both.

6.  Internal Harmony

A good ethical system, ideally speaking, should also have internal harmony.
That is, it should hang together as a system and should have minimal
conflicts within the system.  Some ethicists (such as Fletcher), however,
believe Christianity possesses this type of flaw, because whenever there is
more than one absolute, they say, there will be hopeless conflict between
absolutes.18

The legal scholars (of the Mosaic Law) of Jesus' day undoubtedly had these
conflicts in mind when they questioned Jesus about a hierarchy.  "Of all the
commandments, which is the most important?" (Mark 12:28).  His answer showed
His legal genius when He summarized all the commandments with the command to
love in two directions:  "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. . .
. (and) your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31).  If a man really loves God
in this way, he will certainly love the man whom God created.  Augustine
later said, "Love God, and do as you please." As we first read this, it
sounds like heresy, but really it is only a similar kind of summary.  If a
man truly loves God, he will automatically be motivated to keep His
commandments.  Hence, the love-motif, which is the product of redemption,
produces a harmony that will resolve potential conflicts within the system.

               Some Problems in the Christian View of Ethics

The Christian system of ethics is not without its areas of controversy, even
though we believe it to be superior to its alternatives.  The critics of
Christianity have repeatedly pointed out these problem areas and insist that
they are reason enough to abandon the system as a whole.  We believe this is
a mistake.  Good answers do exist; however, Christian scholars have
sometimes chosen different approaches to answer these charges.  Three main
problems, as well as some viable options, will now be discussed.

The Problem of Conflicts

As Joseph Fletcher has pointed out, when there is more than one absolute in
a system, the possibility of conflict exists.  Take the Ten Commandments as
an example.  Should one tell a lie (Commandment 9) in order to prevent
murder (Commandment 6)?  Christian ethicists have put forth three different
explanations in an effort to explain this difficulty.

The first view denies that God ever puts us into a situation where we have
to choose between commands.  It holds that the conflict is only apparent and
there is always a way to avoid sin.  Those who hold this view would use the
incident in Daniel 1 as an example.  Daniel and his three friends appear to
be in a dilemma when they are commanded to eat meat sacrificed to idols, a
violation of their dietary code.  Daniel presents his captors with a
creative alternative which allows him and his friends to honor their dietary
code and meet the demands of the state at the same time.  Another example
used is where one is hiding Jews in his house and then is asked by the Nazis
if this were true.  One does not have to sin by lying.  One could choose not
to answer, or to say, "Go see for yourself" and leave the results to God.
Some Christian ethicists defend this view admirably; others do not think it
conforms to the model Christ used in avoiding conflicts.  It appears
difficult for adherents of this view to avoid legalism in that they minimize
the connection between rules and results.  Opponents of this position also
suggest that it is evil to do less than one can do, if, for example, lying
would have saved a life.

A second approach is the lesser-of-two evils view.  According to this
position, there are genuine moral dilemmas which one is faced with in life,
in where both alternatives are clearly wrong.  For example, if I am hiding
Jews in my house, and the Nazis knock on the door, it would be wrong to lie,
and it would be wrong to tell the truth since it would result in death to
Jews.  In this situation, I'm simply to do what I construe as the lesser of
the two evils, and then confess my sin.  This view does not deny the
absoluteness of universal norms, but it does admit the reality of conflicts
of duty.

There are two criticisms of this view.  One is that it reduces the choices
to fit the situation, and it also puts the person in the difficult position
of deciding what is the lesser evil.  In some cases, the lesser evil may not
be as clear as in the previous example.  One of the difficulties noted in
utilitarianism is the actual calculation of the greater good.  The same
criticism would apply here, since a similar kind of moral reasoning is
involved.  How does one determine which is the lesser evil?  Would time and
circumstances alter one's evaluation of choices?  Possibly.

A second problem with this view is it apparently contradicts 1 Corinthians
10:13, in which God promises to provide a way to avoid evil.  Ultimately,
this view leaves us with the dilemma of a good God requiring us to sin in
situations where ethical conflict is inevitable.

A third option is some kind of a hierarchy.  This option might also be
called the "greater good" view.  It maintains both a multiplicity of
absolutes and the reality of conflicts in a fallen world.  Those who hold
this view claim it seems to be the model of Christ Himself.  He spoke of
"greater sin" (John 19:11), "greater love" (John 15:13), "greatest
commandment" (Matthew 5:19), and "weightier matters" of the law (matthew
23:23).  For instance, our duty to God is greater than our duty to our
neighbor.  It is our duty to obey government, but not when in conflict with
a command of God. (Acts 5:29).

There are two problems with this view.  How can there be conflicts in God's
commands, and how can a person know the hierarchy?  The proponents of this
view answer that the conflicts are not in God and His character, but rather
the result of sin and a finite world, and the position asserts that
hierarchy can be demonstrated from a study of scripture.  One should also
bear in mind that God judges the heart, or motive, rather than the results.
Biblical morality, they would say, consists of more than mere obedience to a
moral code. 19

This problem of conflicts is undoubtedly an area worthy of further
discussion and evaluation among evangelical ethicists.  However, of these
three views, the third seems to be more in harmony with biblical revelation
and the moral examples found there.20

The Problem of Evil

Succinctly stated, the next question the Christian ethicist must answer is
this:  if God is wholly good and wholly powerful, how does one account for
the existence of evil?  If He is all powerful, why does He not eliminate
evil?  If He is all good and the Creator of all that is, how did evil ever
originate?  This problem is indeed one which theologians and philosophers
have debated for centuries.  Up to this point, there is no single answer
that has silenced all of Christianity's critics.  There are, however,
answers given to fully take into account the nature of God.  It is our
assumption that any answer concerning this problem must itself come out of
God's revelation of Himself in the Scriptures.  We will look at three
passages of Scripture.

Genesis 50:20:  "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good, to
accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." Here the
writer is saying that Joseph was sold into slavery (a great evil) in order
that good might be done--that is, to redeem his brothers from famine.  The
thought appears to be that God allowed evil to work out His plan of
redemption.

John 9:3:  "Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, but this
has happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life'." The
disciples had just questioned Jesus about the origin of this man's
blindness.  The answer Jesus gave indicates that the evil of blindness was
allowed in order that God could display His glory.

Romans 9:17:  ". . . I raised you up (speaking of Pharaoh) for this very
purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be
proclaimed in all the earth." In this reference to Pharaoh, we see Pharaoh
acting on his own free will, yet the outcome is that which God
pre-ordained.  What one would want to say here is that "what ought not to
be, ought not to be permitted." But Paul seems to be saying the opposite in
the following verses (18-21).  Sin, or evil, is somehow permitted and is a
part of God's overall plan.  While it is a part of His plan, we are not
hindered in saying that the evil had its primary source in responsible,
created agents--not God Himself.

Liebnitz, a German philosopher of the seventeenth century, tried to
harmonize the concept of God's goodness with the existence of evil by
maintaining that happiness is the goal of creation.  He claimed that evil is
only God's way of bringing about good.  Hence, World War II was not in
reality a dreadfully evil event, but actually a preserver of peace and
freedom!  Carried out to its logical conclusion, this theory holds that evil
is itself a good.  Because the world was created by a perfect Being, then it
must itself be perfect, assert proponents of this view.  One must then
conclude that sin itself is good.  The world, with its immediate pain and
misery, is ultimately God's way of bringing about greater good (a
contradiction!).  But in this view, the careful observer will notice that
the term "good" has been redefined, referring not to moral good but to
happiness.

When first considering this view, it sounds very plausible, but it has
several flaws.  First, it limits God.  It was, of course, perfect for His
purposes, but not necessarily the only possible world he could have made.
With God, there are an infinite number of possibilities.  In fact it is
incorrect to ascribe worlds to God in terms of better or best.  The world
cannot be perfect in the same sense that God himself is perfect or it would
be infinite.  It is sufficient to say that the world we know is what God, in
His wisdom, saw fit to bring into existence.  It was perfect for His
purpose.  Secondly, happiness (or the greatest good) as the goal of creation
does not seem to have scriptural warrant.  And thirdly, the obvious
criticism is that this view ultimately does away with evil by equating it
with good.

It is surprising how many modern theologians are attracted to this kind of
thinking when the Bible clearly declares that the glory of God is the final
cause for which all things exist (see the following passages:  Psalm 19:1,
Romans 9:23, and Ephesians 2:7).  The glory of God is equal to God's
self-manifestation.  The existence of evil is not for the purpose of
bringing about a greater good, but to display God's attributes.  Charles
Hodge, the great theologian of Princeton, wrote, "As sentient creatures are
necessary for the manifestation of God's benevolence, so there could be no
manifestation of His mercy without misery, no grace and justice without
sin."21 This perspective permits evil, but lets it remain what it is--evil.

While this explanation may not answer all of our questions, we might take
comfort in the fact that there are some things about an infinite God that
finite creatures will never be able to comprehend.  Can a small child always
understand the decisions and ways of his parents?  Can the average citizen
always understand the ways of his government?  In view of this antinomy
between evil and a good God, we must be content with the scriptural fact
that the purpose behind the creation of the universe has been the
self-manifestation of the attributes of God.  Without the permission of evil
to exist, good would be without definition.  Light would be incomprehensible
without a knowledge of darkness.  (That A cannot be known without non-A is
the primary principle of logic.) The Bible clearly states that though not
all things are good, all things do work together for good (Romans 8:28).

The Problem of Interpretation

A third problem to be answered in Christian ethics has to do with
interpretation. If God has made known His will propositionally, how does one
then avoid the entrance of human subjectivity into the understanding, or the
interpretation of that will?  How does one interpret clearly and objectively
what God has revealed so that life might be lived accordingly?  This, of
course, is not always easy or simple, and no pretense is made here to the
effect that it is.  But most theologians agree, that when the commonly
accepted rules of hermeneutics (laws of grammatical interpretation) are
applied, a consensus will emerge as to what the principles of scripture are.

The examiner of the Bible encounters a strange situation.  Scripture does
not lay down a large number of specific statements about every particular
problem.  If the Bible sought to accomplish this, it would be far too bulky
and unwieldy to use conveniently.  It would be an entire library rather than
a book.

For example, the Bible does not give specific dictates about abortion.  But,
it does present clearly the dignity of man, the sacredness of life, and the
fact that God is involved in the growth and development of the fetus (Psalm
139).  Through the application of these principles, we can conclude with
certainty that abortion on demand violates biblical principles.

Other biblical commands must be interpreted in the light of cultural
situations.  "Greet one another with a holy kiss" might be applied in our
Western culture as "greet one another with a sincere handshake." To make
these kinds of commands universal would be a mistake.  The ethical
principles of the Bible however, transcend culture.  There will always be
among Christians differences of opinion on cultural issues as we presently
observe among different groups, cultures, and denominations.

Anticipating these gray areas, Paul gave some principles to apply in 1
Corinthians 8; 10:23-33, and Romans 14.  Church history attests to the fact
that when men are in agreement about their basic assumption that the Bible
is God's word written, a high degree of harmony will be attained concerning
the basic ethical teachings of scripture.

                                  Summary

We conclude with the thought that the Christian ethical system is not wholly
alien to non-believers.  Since every man is a moral being after the image of
God, we should expect a similarity of values world-wide.  C. S. Lewis
demonstrates this in his book The Abolition of Man.  The most elementary
principles of right and wrong must be conceded to man as man; they are the
birthrights of his being, not the legacy of a subsequent revelation.  All
men as men, therefore, possess an ineradicable ethical sense (cf. Romans
2:14ff).  However, while every man has a native law within, it is another
thing to say it is adequate for perfect guidance in human decision-making,
or that it supplies the power or motive to fulfill its dictates.  "Ought"
does not imply "can" or "will." The apostle Paul admitted this in Romans
7:15.  God's standard is "Be ye holy, as I am holy," an impossible
instruction were it not for the divine enablement provided through the death
of His Son.  Upon the acceptance of the gift of salvation, we are given the
Holy Spirit, who begins immediately to overhaul our volition, and we
gradually move toward the goal of Christ-likeness.

It is interesting to note here that, while most philosophers reject
Christianity as a system of truth, many claim to be admirers and followers
of Christian ethics.  B. F. Skinner, a behaviorist, made such claims.22
Bertrand Russell, after he wrote a book entitled Why I Am Not a Christian,
wrote, "What the world needs is Christian love or compassion."23 Others
claim to be followers of the Golden Rule or the principles contained in the
Sermon on the Mount.  Humanistic ethical theorists may talk a great deal
about being compassionate to their fellow man, but in the end, there is no
basis for doing so within humanism itself.  Moral values must be smuggled in
from Christianity, and many humanists quietly do so, though they are
embarrassingly inconsistent.  The reason they are thus inclined is because,
even in their opposition to Christianity, they must acknowledge that its
ethical teachings are unsurpassed in the history of humankind.

                                 References

. Humanist Manifesto I and II (Buffalo, NY:  Prometheus books, 1973), p.
17.

. Harvey Cox, The Secular City (NY:  Macmillan, 1966), p. 27.

. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (London; SCM Press Ltd., 1966), p. 86.

. Erwin Lutzer, The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1981), pp. 27-39).

. See Chapter 4.

. Andrew Greeley, "Young Europeans Lack Real Values" Detroit Free Press, 8
November 1981.

. Stephen Toulmin, The Place of Reason in Ethics (London:  Cambridge Press,
1970), p. 163.

. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (New York:  Signet Classic,
1957), p. 538.

. See Kurt Baier, The Moral Point of View (Cornell, NY:  Cornell University
Press, 1958).

. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1961), 6.41-6.421.

. Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (New York:  Penguin Books,
1968), p. 84.

. For a good study of these Christian social movements, see Earl Cairns,
Saints and Sinners (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1973).

. See the excellent study by Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order
(LaSalle, IL:  Open Court, 1975).

. I am referring here specifically to the work of Jonathan Witherspoon.
See also Francis Schaeffer's comments in How Should We Then Live? (Old
Tappan, NJ:  Fleming Revell Co., 1976), p. 109.

. See Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.  2nd ed.
(Chicago:  Open Court Publishing co., 1934).

. The little book of Philemon in the New Testament teaches by use of
analogy how we are accepted before the Father.  As the Father accepts the
Son, so also we are accepted if we are found in Him.  This same truth is
also taught in Ephesians 1 and 2.

. Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals.
Trans. L. W. Beck.  (New York:  The Liberal Arts Press, 1959), p. 19.

. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 17-22.

. Erwin Lutzer, The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes, p. 75.

. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see:  Norman Geisler.
Options In Contemporary Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books,
1982).

. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B.
Eerdman's, n.d.), pp. 435-36.  Se also:  Plantinga, Alvin C.  God, Freedom,
and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1974.

. Time Magazine, 26 September 1971.

. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science of Society (London:  Allen and
Unwin, 1952), p. 114:  "The point of the matter is a very simple and old
fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it,
for fear of the derisive smile with which wise cynics will greet my words.
The thing I mean--please forgive me for mentioning.  It is love, Christian
love, or compassion. . . ."

                             For Further Study

Clark, Gordon H.  A Christian View of Men and Things.  Grand Rapids, MI.:
Baker Book House, 1982, See Chapter IV.

Erickson, Millard J.  Relativism in Contemporary Christian Ethics.  Grand
Rapids, MI.:  Baker Book House, 1974.

Frankena, WIlliam K.  Ethics.  Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:  Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1973.

Geisler, Norman L. and Feinberg, Paul D.  Introduction to Philosophy.  Grand
Rapids, MI.:  Baker Book House, 1980.  See Part Five.

Henry, Carl F. H., ed., Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics.  Grand
Rapids, MI.:  Baker Book House, 1973.

Henry, Carl F. H.  Christian Personal Ethics.  Grand Rapids, MI.:  Baker
Book House, 1957.

Holmes, Arthur F.  Ethics.  Downers Grove, Ill.:  InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Lutzer, Erwin.  The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes.  Grand Rapids, MI.:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Murray, John.  Principles of Conduct.  Grand Rapids, MI.:  Wm. B. Eerdman's
Publishing Co., 1957.

Rudnick, Milton L.  Christian Ethics for Today:  An Evangelical Approach.  G
and Rapids, MI.:  Baker Book House, 1979.

Schaeffer, Francis A.  He Is There and He Is Not Silent.  Wheaton,IL.:
Tyndale House Publishers, 1972.  See Chapter 2.

Smedes, Lewis B. Mere Morality.  Grand Rapids, MI.:  Wm. B. Eerdman's
Publishing Co., 1983.

Van Til, Cornelius.  Christian Theistic Ethics.  Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.
 
Christian Information Ministries is a non-profit ministry and is 
dependent on gifts from God's people in order to operate.  If you 
receive a benefit from our materials would you consider giving a 
tax-deductible gift to CIM.  We suggest $25. a year minimum.  
Send to:  Christian Information Ministries 
          2050 N. Collins Blvd. #100 
          Richardson, TX  75080 

Top of Page