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)

THE PATRIARCHAL CUTLURES AND TRADITIONS IN THE BIBLE: A CRITIQUE

THE PATRIARCHAL CUTLURES AND TRADITIONS IN THE BIBLE:  A CRITIQUE

 by R.L.Hnuni

At the outset on this great occasion of the Silver Jubilee of Women’s ordination in CSI, I would like to congratulate the Church of South India for being one of the first Churches in India to ordain women in ministry.  I congratulate the women belonging to the Church particularly those who have received their ordination for God’s ministry during the 25 year period.

I am happy to be part of this great celebration and I share the joy of my women co-workers in the CSI at this event.  I hope we find more and more committed and dedicated women who come forward for God’s ministry.  Ordination, however, is not our ultimate aim, our purpose of entering in the ministry, debarment in God’s ministry on gender ground is to be rejected as devil, and at the same time the debarment that is still existing should not be allowed to have any control in our commitment to serve God.  We should be firm in our commitment and dedication to God, though traditions and cultures bound us, but they should not bind our mind and heart, our commitment.  We should feel and enjoy the liberation God gives us through our Savior and liberator Jesus.

The topic that is given to me was Critique of Traditions and Cultures in the Bible, which I reshape it ‘The Patriarchal Traditions and Cultures in the Bible: A Critique’. The Bible contains various pictures – positive and negative - of women.  While there are a number of references that picture women positively, it is unfortunate that we often picked up the negative pictures to suit to our negative ideology about women.  There are at least three tiers in which women’s subordinate status and role in the church and society has been reinforced – androcentrism of biblical texts, traditional theology and traditional interpretation.

It is generally agreed by all feminist theologians that biblical traditions and Christian theology are written shaped and formulated mostly by men in the male-dominated contexts, they are patriarchal. What Phillis Bird states is quite right that the Bible is a man’s book where women appear mostly as adjuncts of men. The biblical writers’ androcentric concern and presentation can be seen throughout the Bible – both OT and NT. As such the Bible abounds in male languages and imagery.

Christian theology has been shaped and formulated with patriarchal mindset by male theologians. Early theologians who are the shapers of theology such as Augustine and his followers such as Thomas Aquinas and others in the Medieval period and Karl Barth and other in the modern period, who did not regard women as full human beings, as inferior to men and not made in God’s image, passed on male theology which ignored and excluded women from one century to another.  Traditional patriarchal theology which Christians regard as the only Christian theology has been inherited that what both men and women regard as Christian theology has been exclusive and patriarchal. As they regard maleness as the normative form of humanity, the writers claim universality when they write theology.  Feminist theologians agree that so long as the male, the half (or less than half of humanity) is taken to represent humanity what has been shaped and written in Christian theology has been distorted in such a way that it cannot be read correctly.  Fiorenza rightly states, “The Christian marginality of women has its historical roots in the patriarchal beginnings of the church and in the androcentrism of Christian revelation.”1

Biblical interpretations too have suffered serious male injunctions as male interpreters have harmoniously associated with sexism, faith and culture that it was not before long that feminists have started to question it. As much as traditional theology perpetuates women’ subordination and determines their inferior status and role, biblical interpretations have reinforced women’s culturally bound subjugation.  The interpretation of the creation story and the story of the fall has done much harm to women.  That ‘women is created to be a helper for man’ makes interpreters to conclude with the idea that therefore woman is a servant to man and subordinate to him.  Likewise, the interpretation of the story of the fall in Genesis 3 condemns woman as originator of evil, source of all sins into the world.  Unfortunately, early theologians often headed in such biased interpretations. The first century Latin Church leader Tertullian has brought out this negative comment on Eve, the first woman:

You are the devil’s gateway.  You are the unsealer of that forbidden tree.  You are the fist deserter of the divine law.  You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack.  You destroyed so easily God’s image man.  On account of your desert, that is death, even the Son of God had to die.2

Later hermeneutics and commentators continue to uphold male righteousness and female sin. The Jewish commentator, Cassuto maintains that the serpent is female and the cunning of the serpent in reality is the cunning of a woman.3  Mckenzie connects woman’s moral weakness with her sexual attraction and holds that the latter ruined both the man and the woman.4  Thus male interpreters understand woman as responsible not only for the origin of evil in the world, but makes female to “represent the qualities of materiality, irrationality, carnality and finitude, which debase the manly spirit and drag it down into sin and death.”5  In this way women are blamed for mistakes and wrong things done as imitators of Eve as Ruether rightly concludes “the scapegoating of Eve as the fall of Adam makes all women as her daughters, guilty for the radical impotence of ‘man’ in the face of evil which is paid for only by the death of Christ”.6

It is quite evident that as the Bible is written, theologized and interpreted by male from patriarchal mindset, the texts, theology and interpretation no doubt contain androcentrism and misogynism. The patriarchal texts, Christian theology and traditional interpretation together are very much responsible in shaping and influencing culture that marginalize women.  In the writings and interpretations women’s history and experience have been ignored, as such they are responsible for perpetuating patriarchal attitude through ages both in the church and society.

As states sanctifications of patriarchy are undoubtedly part of biblical texts.  However it is to be noted that while patriarchy abounds, biblical tradition also contains resources for the critique of both patriarchy and its religious sanctification. These resources may be used for denouncing the patriarchal traditions as R.R. Ruether asserts, “they are to be stripped, thereby of their religious covering and exposed for what they are; as idolatry, blasphemy, the misuse of divine name to sanction injustice and the failure of a significant portion of biblical writer.”7 Some examples may suffice.

1. The tradition preserved in the creation stories of both Genesis 1 and 2 provide excellent resource for critique of patriarchal traditions.  The term ‘adham’ which derived from the etymology of a feminine material ‘ground’ gives inclusive picture of man and woman as reflecting the whole human being intended by God.  The fact that the ‘adham’ of male and female composition reflects God’s image and God’s likeness opposes traditional theology that claims man and not woman as created in God’s image.  It is to ‘adham’ which comprises male and female that God entrusts other creations which is in opposition to the cultural hold that man alone has responsibility to authority and domination.  Similarly, the  second account of creation story opposes the traditional interpretation that uphold man’s superiority over woman thereby determining the latter’s subjugation and subordinate status.  A ‘helper’ tradition is not subordinate, but it is a status of high dignity, the status of God.  Traditional and cultural values that regard men as superior to women have helped male interpreters to claim that women being ‘helpers’ are simply to function like servants, therefore, they are subordinate to men. While the text is interpreted androcentrically, the text itself provide critique for that androcentrism.  The word helper in Hebrew 'ezer’ or participial noun ‘ozer’ which does not connote any subordinate position, rather is a term that has dignity and high status,  the function of ‘ezer’ belongs to God.  God has given that function to the creature who is to be the co-equal and partner of man.  The woman as an ‘ezer’ of man meets the need of the man just as God is a helper par excellence to Israel.   

2.  The exodus tradition that upholds the liberative work of Moses and Aaron downplays and ignores the important role that women play in the salvation history.  The same tradition  however, records the important role played by a group of women preparing the ‘saviour’s to play his role. Without the intervention of brave women such as Shiprah, Puah, Moses’ mother and Moses’ sister Moses could not have achieved his job.  Moreover, the fact that God is on the side of the poor who does not tolerate infliction of oppression of any form on any ground criticizes patriarchal oppression of women. Exodus tradition ignores women, yet the same tradition provides resource for critique of that very tradition that excludes women. 

3.  The language of God and Jesus as King and Lord reflect male language that permeates throughout the two testaments. It portrays God as male in so far as the language is concerned.  It may be understood in two ways; to undercut and criticize the lords of this world and/or to reinforce the legitimacy of and propagate the lordship of men. However, the exclusive male language and metaphor which reflects leadership relationships of power and domination used for God can be rejected  by the use of the image of servanthood. God and Christ as servants means leadership of service rather than dominion. “I came not to be served but to serve” declares Jesus. The image of servant-hood contradicts the image of power and domination embedded with kingship  or lordship.

Similarly, the prophetic tradition denounces oppressive economic and political power as the prophets identify themselves with poor people against the wealthy landlords and merchants of the cities. In the prophetic tradition, the community of God is also seen as an enslaved and oppressed people over against the powerful rulers of the ancient near east.  The prophetic God is  the God who does not represent the powerful, but is the God who vindicates the oppressed who is seen as overthrowing unjust society by turning it upside down.  Jeremiah speaks of a new era which will be a time when everything will be created anew on earth, the woman will protect the man (Jer. 31:22).  It will be a time of harmony and equality.

3.   In the Gospels we find Jesus’ critique of religious tradition and cultural norms in his interpretation of messianism as well as in his actions.  Jesus rejects the chauvinistic understanding and kingly image of the Messiah.  Lordship and   power struggle does not have place in Jesus life and ministry.  Disciples are told not to be like Gentiles who try to exercise power and domination over others. Jesus’ rejection of power-dominion model of the society is thus vividly expressed in his own words. “It shall not be so among you, but whosoever would be great among you must be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve . . .” (Matt 20:26-28). “The critique of false power relationship is at the very heart of the gospel.”8 

4.  Jesus’ critique of the cultural norms and religious traditions that regard women unclean is vivid in his healing action of the woman who suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years.  According to the religious law Jesus would have undergone purification rite as the woman touched him and made him ‘unclean’.  Jesus rejected the cultural norms that oppressed women by publicly declaring that she touched him and was healed of her hemorrhages, he did not undergo purification.

    Whereas a number of Biblical traditions are androcentric and perpetuating women’s oppression and discrimination, they also provide critique for patriarchal injunctions.  The examples of Jesus, his radical and revolutionary action against the Jewish social and religious norms become resources for critique of patriarchal injunctions that oppressed women not only in his own time but even in our time today.  Jesus was on the side of the oppressed, he restored  them to their rightful place and empowered them.  Patriarchal injunctions that debar women to full time ministry with leadership roles should not discourage women from actively participating in God’s continuing ministry.

_________

Dr. R.L. Hnuni is the Principal of Academy of Integrated Christian Studies (AICS), Aizawl, Mizoram.  She got her D.Th in Old Testament from SATHRI.  She taught at Eastern Theological College, Jorhat for 18 years.  She is presently a member of the Coordination Committee, and of the Committee on Academic Administration (CAA), and the Honorary Treasurer of the Senate of Serampore College.

http://www.womenutc.com/rlhnuni.htm (13.02.2013)