Use of Bible in Christian Ethics

Use of Bible in Christian Ethics:

I. THE BIBLE:supreme authority, not sole authority

James Gustafson: *** "An authority can be unique without being exclusive. The Bible has such a status. . . . Thus, for Christian ethics its authority is inescapable without being absolute" ("Introduction," in H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self, 1963, p. 22).

Cyril Rodd: *** "It is highly improbable that the scriptures ever function as an absolute authority, over-riding all other motives.  more often it is used to support attitudes which have been taken up on quite other grounds" ("The Use of the OT in Christian Ethics," in New Occasions 7).

A. What is the Bible?

(1) It is a collection--anthology--of writings produced over a 1000-year period by Israel and by early Christian worshipers of a particular God [a statement of historical fact]

(2) It is a record of that God's self-disclosure to persons of the past; Christians assert that this record becomes revelation for the believer today [a faith statement]

(3) The "Word of God" [faith statements]

(a) "The statement that the Bible is God's Word is a confession of faith, a statement of the faith which hears God himself speaks through the biblical word of man" (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatic, I.1, 110).

(b) It is a divine-human book:

(4) It is a book which points beyond itself--to God; i.e., the Bible itself is not the most important thing--it serves as a vehicle to bring a person to God. "Faith looks through the Scriptures, not at them" (Douglas John Hall, Thinking the Faith, 443).

B. Difficulties in appropriating the Bible in ethics:

1. Difficulties intrinsic to the Bible(see L. Wm Countryman, Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny? 2):

(1) It is an ancient book.

Hence the importance of the "two horizons"--then and now.  If the Bible is not to mean anything we want it to, then we must pay attention to the original context of its teachings; if it is to mean something to us, then we must pay attention to our context (Rodd, "The Use of the OT in Christian Ethics," inNew Occasions 12).

"Ironically, "the most distinctive source of Christian ethics, the Bible, is the product of the most primitive stage in the life history of the community founded in Christ" (Cahill, Between the Sexes 5).

(2) The cultural gap between the biblical period and us:

Cyril Rodd, focusing specifically on the OT, states that this cultural gap "is probably the chief factor behind the difficulty in using the OT in ethics today" (ibid 6).

The Bible is culturally-conditioned: in language, racial attitudes, gender attitudes, cosmology, etc.; or, the OT emphasis on holiness, purity, and uncleanness, expressed esp in terms of ceremonial purity/uncleanness. "The writers encountered God in the historical process and reported that encounter in their own way. Who they were affected what they said and how they said it" (Crook, 89).

"Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits" 

(3) The Bible is not a systematic textbook on ethics.

It does not reflect philosophically on ethics or the foundations of ethics; it does not deal systematically with specific issues.

(4) As a consequence of #3, the Bible does not always speak with one voice on a matter:

• e.g., divorce (not only the difference between Deuteronomy and Jesus, but also between Jesus' own words as recorded in Matthew and Mark); war (kill everything that breathes vs. love your enemies).
• Birch and Rasmussen warn against "genre reductionism"--"the effective selection, whether deliberate or not, of only certain kinds of biblical materials as the materials pertinent to ethics" (109).

(5) The strangeness of Scripture:

• e.g., regarding sex & marriage, it speaks of Solomon's harem; levirate marriage; Jacob's purchase of a bride; Bilhah giving birth on Rachel's lap.
• Or what about the strangeness of Acts 5--the death of Ananias and Sapphira because they held back some of their money?

Having emphasized the strangeness/distance of Scripture, we move on to look for continuities. They are there because the biblical authors and modern Christians are concerned about the same thing--the ways of God with humanity (Countryman 93).

(6) The moral problems raised by the Bible itself:

"Shall we justify genocide because it is found in Scripture?" (Countryman 12)--e.g., Deut 7: 1-5; 20:16-18; Joshua 6:21; 1 Sam 15.

By the same token, shall we justify slavery because it is found in Scripture? "With regard to slavery, as with regard to other areas of social ethics, the moral stance of the NT is often passively conservative. One does not seek to change one's social or political station but rather to serve God faithfully in that station, no matter how degraded it may seem to be" .

Or, what about the NT's admonition to submit to the ruling authorities--"For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors. . . ." (1 Peter 2:13-14, 17; cf Rom 13:1-7).

 2. Difficulties extrinsic to the Bible--i.e., those "arising not from faults within the Scriptures themselves but rather from the way in which Christians have been accustomed to using the Bible".

(1) We are culturally conditioned in our hearing of the Bible:

"It is a mistake for us to assume that we can enter into the study of the Bible as if we were not particular people in a definite history. . . . We all bring our own agendas to the study of the Bible. These agendas affect everything from our approach to the Bible in the beginning to the 'truth' we see in the end. As long as these agendas remain hidden from us, as long as we do not investigate our underlying assumptions, then our study is most likely to result in little more than a proof texting of our preconceptions" (Joseph Hardegree, Jr., "Bible Study for Marxist Christians," in The Bible and Liberation, 95).

"Our decisions are not made on the basis of our faith alone but are powerfully conditioned by our other loyalties" (Crook 101; 2nd ed, 97).

"If we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all times, we are merely naive" (Rachels 13).

(2) Many of our most crucial modern problems are not addressed in the Bible at all

e.g., genetics, as well as most of the field of bioethics--including abortion and euthanasia; nuclear and chemical warfare; AIDS; church-state relations are dealt with indirectly but certainly not in our terms--First Amendment issues or religion in public issues; the depletion of non-renewable natural resources; gun control; economic issues such as multi-national businesses and their impact on Third World economies.

(3) The relation of the Bible to those outside the Christian community of faith:

Even when the Bible's ethical norms have been correctly interpreted and accepted within the community of faith, THERE REMAINS THE SEPARATE AND EQUALLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF HOW THE BIBLICAL NORMS SHOULD RELATE TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY OF FAITH (see Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, 125).

 (4) The way the Bible has been distorted:

"The world knows all too well that a scriptural text can be used to justify almost anything, including war, racism, and silence while a nation commits genocide" (Jeffrey Hadden, The Gathering Storm in the Churches, 1969, 233). See also Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle, The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture (NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1996).

Our selective use of biblical materials is one way we distort. "Sometimes Scriptures which we overlook and downplay say as much or more about us than those passages which we lift up and to which we pay so much attention" (Delos Miles, Evangelism and Social Involvement, 1986, 36). ***What does it say about us, that the law vs. charging interest in mentioned in the OT, yet we pay so little attention to it? How much better known are the fewer texts which address homosexuality?

These are not insurmountable problems, but we should recognize how high the hurdles are.

***Crook: "THE PROPER USE OF THE BIBLE IS A DEMANDING UNDERTAKING. . . IT REQUIRES IMAGINATION AND INTUITION TO APPLY ANCIENT NORMS TO PRESENT ISSUES" (48; 2nd ed, 44).

OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY THAN THE BIBLE MUST BE ADDED BECAUSE, AS JEFFREY HADDEN REMINDS US, "THE WORLD KNOWS ALL TOO WELL THAT A SCRIPTURAL TEXT CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST ANYTHING, INCLUDING WAR, RACISM, AND SILENCE WHILE A NATION COMMITS GENOCIDE" (The Gathering Storm in the Churches, 233).

WAYS in which CHRISTIANS APPROPRIATE THE BIBLE FOR ETHICS:

1.  LEGALISM: seeks to prescribe rules for every moral decision in every circumstance. The Bible is used as a rule book.

(a) Strengths:

·  legalism takes the Bible and sin seriously.

·  it provides definite guidance and authority.

·  "Rules can serve well as guides for day-to-day conduct. That is, we do not need to try to make every decision in life as if we have never before encountered a similar situation. . . . Rules are also helpful in preventing us from making decisions on the basis of self-interest rather than of love" (Crook 102-3).

(b) Weaknesses:

·  Legalism fails to deal with the complexity of life. Not every situation can be covered by a rule.

·  There is much subjectivity regarding which laws will be kept.   E.g., the law about not charging interest is mentioned  in the OT; the law against homosexuality. Guess which one is better known and more often cited today?

·  It does not lead to genuine maturity. "A legalistic morality is relatively simple because we can measure our achievements by the code and catch ourselves where we fall short. But the radically unselfish concern and the constant self-giving demanded by love are entirely beyond our grasp. " (Crook 94).

·  The Bible points toward living a transformed life, not just following rules (Marshall, in New Occasions 25).

2.  A HIERARCHY OF VALUES APPROACH:

There are many biblical norms, which must be arranged according to intrinsic value. A person may be exempt from keeping a lower norm by virtue of acting in accord with a higher norm. Ideally, one does not choose the lesser of two evils but the greater of two goods.

Some principles of hierarchicalism:

·  Every individual is of infinite worth. Everyone, therefore, is to be dealt with not as a tool or a thing but as a person, as an end and not as a means.

·  Material values are secondary to personal values.

·  Infinite person (i.e., God) is more valuable than finite persons. See Exodus 1; Daniel 3; Acts 4.

·  Actual persons are more valuable than potential persons.

NOTE: an interesting variation on the hierarchical approach is the view that sees a tension between this world and the world to come. "God's will" expresses God's ideal [the top of the hierarchy], but that ideal may be impossible to attain in this world; here, we may have to settle for less than the ideal.

3.  PRINCIPLISM:

Principleists try to strike a balance between legalism (with its strict attention to rules) and situationalism (with its absence of rules). Principleists believe that the biblical commands cannot easily be set aside, since God's will is revealed in them. However, God's will is not completely contained in the commands. So, the principleist "seeks to understand the inner movement of the various [biblical] witnesses" (Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, 132). Thus principleism forces the interpreter to try to discern God's over-arching intention for humans in this life.

THE ULTIMATE AND UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE: LOVE.

4.  AS A DIALOGUE PARTNER:

The Bible is important for ethics in terms of its "influence, encouragement, and inspiration" 

We may find guidance by attending to the process by which the biblical communities worked out problems. "Often the authority of scripture is as much in its modeling of a process as in its mediating of a content" (Bruce Birch, Let Justice Roll Down 34). E.g., a problem Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians--eating meat sacrificed to idols--is not at all an issue in our world. But we may be helped by noting the process by which this community worked out that problem--the more mature members of the community should willingly give up their privilege so they will not offend, thereby maintaining peace in the community.

Scholars taking this approach:

Douglas John Hall: The Bible is authoritative because it is "the testimony of the eye-witnesses" (Barth, I.1, 98ff). ****"If our ultimate authority is the biblical God; if that God has revealed God's self in events, the central event of which is 'Jesus Christ and him crucified'; if these events and the original reflection of the disciple community upon these events are described in the Bible, then, by any logic whatsoever, the Bible is the primary testimony to the divine authority" (Hall, Thinking the Faith, 441).

"The Bible, therefore, remains a provisional authority, both in the sense that it is provided in our weakness to aid our remembering of the events which are foundational for our belief, and in the sense that, however unique and irreplaceable it may be, it is never in itself and as such that to which our faith looks for ultimacy of truth and meaning. In a word, faith looks through the Scriptures, not at them" (Hall, 443).

"Theology, when it is true to its own best traditions, must always imitate the original disciples, not in their precise narration of the meaning of the faith so much as in the manner of their quest for that meaning" (Thinking, 64-65).

Robin Scroggs, "The Bible as Foundational Document," Interpretation 49 (Jan '95):17-30, for a view of making the Bible a dialogue partner, but one which does not necessarily have the last word. "As foundational documents the texts have, on the one hand, the power to transform and to lead us into new paths of thinking and, on the other, to speak caution to our eagerness to follow the secular world in the latest cultural passion."

Scroggs notes the following as a working method in the dialogue approach:

(i) It would be against the "rules" to appeal to biblical stances or assertins as the only correct ones just because they are in the Bible.

(ii) It would be legitimate to propose a view that is opposed to a view found in the Bible.

(iii) The Bible would be set in its historical, social context, and serious effort would be made to understand the reasons why the Bible claims what it does, that is, the Bible would be taken seriously in the dialogue and the possibility kept alive that the Bible might have compelling reasons for its positions, even when they run against contemporary sensibilities.

(iv) Contemporary sensibilities and the moral, sociological, and psychological bases upon which they are based would be allowed as serious dialogue partners with the Bible.

(v) The dialogue would be conducted with an awareness of one's finiteness and personal involvement in the issues, and no defense of, or antagonism to, the Bible's point of view would be used as a club to bash the other side into silence. (p 26)