Discerning Ethics E-Book
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
Racism. Immigration. Gun violence. Sexuality. Health care. The number of ethical issues that demand a response from Christians today is almost dizzying. How can Christians navigate such matters? What are faithful responses to these questions? Edited by two theologians with pastoral experience, this volume invites engagement with these issues and more by drawing on real-life experiences and offering a range of responses to some of the most challenging moral questions confronting the church today. With an unflinching yet irenic approach, this resource can help Christians as they seek to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 666
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Dedicated to the pastors and lay Christians around the worldwho are willing to lead others in courageous conversations about the divisive social issues of our time in pursuit of justice and the common good.
Contents
FOREWORD
Mark Labberton
I believe the central question for the church in our era is this: Will God’s people live our identity? It’s not directly a question about God but about us. Will we show in concrete action that our new and peculiar identity as people of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection leads us to enact such love, justice, and mercy in the world? It is not the profession of our gospel for which the world waits. It is whether our actions validate or violate our profession.
This was Jesus’ concern first. In Matthew 7, Jesus teaches that what we believe will be apparent in how we act. It will not be enough to hear what we profess but to see what happens when the winds, and the rains, and the floods beat against our house. Do we stand—not just in the sense of survival rather than obliteration, but in the sense of bearing enduringly faithful witness to the God we name and seek to honor?
These are underlying questions that I believe form the backdrop for the sixteen ethical issues explored in this book. Each of these fine essays demonstrates the demands of Christian faithfulness, courage, humility, and confidence needed in Christian moral thought and action. They are written in relation to real life stories while listening to diverse moral voices with the hope of opening relevant questions and nuances that need careful and empathic consideration and discussion. Dr. Hak Joon Lee and Dr. Tim Dearborn, both scholars and pastors, have edited this fascinating and demanding volume of essays to enable Christian identity to be better understood and demonstrated in the face of complex ethical questions raised in a radically pluralistic and globalizing world.
The deepest cynicism against the church emerges when we make so much of our Christian profession while showing so little of its fruit in our words and actions. Right now, the crisis of the American church is not one imposed upon it by its surrounding cultural and political realities so much as it is a crisis of the church’s own making by its failure to remember and to practice its identity. To no small extent, this failure results from the church’s fear of diverse moral voices and inability to engage them with mutual respect and theological rigor and nuances. I am grateful that these essays so vividly demonstrate that ethical questions of our day, our faith, and our times need careful and continuous reflection and conversation. These essays are both classical and postmodern; they are like the work of many previous generations and they are also the work of this particular moment. So it should be. Christian ethics are daily read off of the lives of Christian people. Our neighbors know our ethics by how we live, what we do or fail to do, like it or not. And such ethics naturally grows out of our communal life of ongoing dialogue and deliberation in Christ. May these essays cause all their readers, as they have me, to grapple thoughtfully and faithfully, in agreement or disagreement, toward a Christian life of more deeply formed moral thought and action, not as philosophical abstraction but as embodied and humble life that I pray will be a truer reflection of Jesus Christ.
Acknowledgments
This book has grown out of a curriculum for “Micah Groups,” which gather a dozen church leaders from diverse ethnic, socioeconomic, and church backgrounds to journey together for two years to examine how to incorporate matters of justice into the worship and preaching life of their congregations. Since this program began, 1,250 leaders in seventy-five cities and five countries have grown as wise, empowered preachers who live and lead at the convergence of worship, preaching, and justice. A dozen topics addressed here were used in those groups in a curricular format, but the current volume is substantially different from the curriculum in terms of its content, depth, and scope; it expands and deepens the theological and ethical discussions to a more academic level. We are grateful for the dozens of church leaders who gave input into how these complex issues could be most helpfully presented and examined.
A book of this scope is collaborative by necessity. Behind it is the inspiration of two people in particular. Mark Labberton, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, originated both the idea and the program that ultimately led to the birth of this volume. As the founding director of the Lloyd John Ogilvie Institute of Preaching, he developed the Micah Groups program. We are grateful for his warm support of this book, not least through his contribution of the foreword. Also behind this effort is the endorsement and example of Lloyd John Ogilvie. Throughout his life, as senior pastor at Hollywood Presbyterian Church and later as chaplain to the US Senate, he encouraged Christians to engage difficult issues of justice with wisdom, courage, and grace. He was a steady dialogue partner and friend as this project has emerged.
We thank Joshua Beckett for his tireless effort in service to this volume as a contributor, project assistant, and copyeditor. His gifts as a writer and a rising theologian made a difference for the book. We are likewise grateful to the fourteen other contributing authors, all well informed in their specialized fields of expertise. They have diverse denominational backgrounds, but they all share a commitment to the same cause of serving Christians with theological education. We appreciate them for their willingness to go the extra mile to make their chapters accessible to readers without compromising theological depth. It has been a tremendous joy to work with them.
Other people who have played integral roles in this endeavor include the staff of the Ogilvie Institute, Jennifer Ackerman and Mark Finney. Jennifer facilitated the “beta” version of these materials and responded to the suggestions of church leaders. Mark Finney researched topics and provided a vast array of current resources to enhance groups’ engagement with the issues.
Our hope is that this book will be a resource that serves to help Christians address contemporary ethical challenges. Through our contact with highly motivated and competent seminary students at Fuller and with Micah Group members around the country, we have encountered hundreds of church leaders who are indeed leading their congregations with wisdom and courage. Once again in history, the Spirit of God is stirring churches to be God’s ekklēsia—the group of diverse women and men who conduct the affairs of the kingdom of God in their community.
Introduction
Hak Joon Lee
OUR ANXIOUS ERA
We live in a rocky time—a time of massive structural changes, a civilizational shift, and deepening inequality and injustices. Accelerating globalization and the advance of communication technologies are reshaping our civilization and political dynamics. Eroded by the mobility of globalization, the power of financial markets, and the anonymity and vitriol of the Internet, our social institutions, cultural ethos, interpersonal communications, work experiences, personal tastes, and religious identities are undergoing unprecedented changes. Conventional moral values and norms are being challenged; traditional communities and institutions are losing authority; welfare programs and safety nets are being removed; and numerous jobs are either being outsourced to other countries or replaced by robots and computers.
It seems that the earth is shifting under our feet. This cultural dissonance and structural dissolution engender anxiety, fear, uncertainty, and anomie (as indicated by the rise in drug addiction, depression, and suicide rates), and they create the conditions necessary for an acceleration of xenophobia, nativism, protectionism, and racism. Under the pressure of these structural changes and cultural shifts, the body politic in the United States shows signs of deep cracks and fissures. Trust in our political institutions and politicians are hitting historical lows, and the nation seems more politically polarized than at any other time in recent history. It seems that the American experiment of a democratic, multicultural society now faces unprecedented challenges.
At the heart of this polarization are controversies around how we as a society should deal with particular social issues such as immigration, same-sex marriage, gun violence, public education, and global warming and their personal, religious, financial, and security implications. These controversies in fact reflect radical divergences and differences in ethics (more particularly social ethics), that is, what our normative and authoritative ideals, vision, values, and virtues should be and why. This polarization, of course, is a symptom of the fragmentation that our society is facing, the demise of its basic common values and shared frame of reference, to a dangerous extent.
Unfortunately, Christians are not an exception to this cultural polarization, but rather at the center of many of these controversial issues, worsening the partisanship, misunderstanding, and conflict. Christians today are as divided over social ethics as they are over doctrines, ethnicity, and worship styles, even while all Christians sing and confess that they are the members of the one body of Christ. Even while we believe in one God, serve one Lord, pray in the one Spirit, and read one book, we are often radically divergent in our understanding of God’s will on particular social issues. Debates become passionate and heated because these issues have to do with questions of identity, values, and our calling as Christians. The polarization among Christians frequently boils over to the level of distrust and antagonism, as we all justify our moral stances and positions in the name of God and demonize the other party without hesitating to use fake news and alternative facts.
The current polarized political climate discourages, and at times even appears to preclude, the possibility of studying and learning from different ethical views on social issues. Many preachers and Christians feel cautious or wary about offering biblical teachings and insights on controversial social issues because of their fear of fracturing their own congregations; consequently, they remain noticeably silent about the issues. They do not want to upset people, but the outcome is that many Christians are more influenced by secular ideologies (that they receive from friends, the Internet, or other media sources) than they are by the corporate spiritual formation of their congregation. All too rarely do Christians have any chance to develop theologically informed, publicly tested opinions and ideas at church. As a result, churches are not only racially segregated but also politically and culturally segregated, exacerbating the divisions within the universal body of Christ and the national body politic.
The situation is not much different in classrooms of Christian colleges, seminaries, and divinity schools. Professors and students are often afraid of freely expressing their particular views on controversial social issues, and conversations about these issues are mostly confined to the safety of likeminded people.
WHY CAN’T WE ALL GET ALONG?
Why can’t Christians get along with each other on social issues? Where do these radical differences come from and why? As the following brief observations indicate, the polarization of our moral understanding stems from several different sources.
Authoritative sources. While all serious Christians may genuinely want to know and pursue God’s will, they differ in where they find the sources of that knowledge. In ethical decisions, some prioritize the Bible as the primary moral authority, others lift up church teachings or rely on the dogmatic pronouncements of prominent church leaders, while still others endeavor to listen to the direct personal guidance of the Spirit. To make matters more complicated, Christians often prioritize different moral visions, values, norms, or teachings in the same source. For example, while all Protestants hold the Bible to be the primary, central authority in discerning the will of God, there are ongoing debates among Christians as to which biblical texts (e.g., the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus, or the apostolic epistles) are most foundational and authoritative, and whether normative sources other than the Bible (e.g., church tradition, experience, and reason) are relevant for decision making, as well as to what extent and in what order.
Adding further complexity is the reality that interpreting the moral teachings of the Bible can be challenging because of its unresolved ambiguities, tensions, and even silence on certain moral topics that we face today, and it is a mistake for Christians to select one teaching or narrative over the others without examining the entire Bible and the context in which it was written.
Interpretation. Even if Christians rely on the same source(s), values, and norms, their different interpretations of these sources, values, and norms can (and often do) result in different ethical decisions. Humans never read and understand the Bible, or even empirical reality, in the exact same way. This epistemological difference results from the fact that we all wear, implicitly or explicitly, a certain interpretive lens. There is no naked access to reality. Interpretations reflect our different personal upbringing, life experiences, social locations, and cultural heritages as members of particular racial, ethnic, gender, and economic and religious groups. Sometimes our interpretations are colored by our political ideologies and vested interests; hence, careful scrutiny is necessary.
While no interpretation is completely neutral or objective, this does not mean, however, that all interpretations are equally valid or equally flawed. That is, this plurality of interpretation does not entail ethical relativism but rather indicates the inevitably conditional and contingent nature of human knowledge, including hermeneutics and ethical reasoning. Important for our purposes is the fact that a critical comparison between diverse interpretations is possible.
Empirical analysis and data. As with moral sources and interpretations, different empirical analyses of a specific social issue may also result in different ethical decisions. Many Christians often understand Christian ethics simply as the application of relevant biblical principles and rules to a particular topic, but every ethical decision also includes certain judgments about the factual, empirical aspects of that issue.1 That is, every ethical issue has an empirical side to it, and its analysis contributes to the decisions that we make. Hollinger notes, “Often differences in ethical decisions are due to differing accounts of what is happening in a given situation. The particular way we portray the reality may well determine, at least in part, the ethical outcome.”2 For example, the controversy around abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells turns on the questions of when a human life begins and whether a fetus is a full person or not. Similarly, the debates on global warming are shaped by whether it is caused by humans or not, and whether science offers reliable evidence on this question. Hence, empirical analysis is crucial for understanding an issue. Any reasoning that disregards relevant empirical realities is very likely to result in a misunderstanding of the issue and its moral nature. History offers numerous examples of how Christian decisions have often been informed and influenced by fear, trauma, ambition, or nationalist ideology (e.g., German Lutheran churches’ support of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (1933–1945); overwhelming American Evangelical support of the Iraq War in 2003).
Because of its broad scope and public nature, an empirical analysis in social ethics requires higher and more rigorous standards. For empirical analysis of those issues, we typically rely on the findings of the social and natural sciences. Social-scientific analysis is different from a few personal anecdotes or individual observations. It usually relies on tested scientific processes and methods of data gathering, observation, analysis, and interpretation. It seeks to discover, as precisely as possible, certain regularities or recurring patterns—causal relationships that persist in natural or historical phenomena.3
In summary, we differ in ethical positions because we often understand God’s will, read the Bible, and perceive the empirical realities around social issues differently. To bridge the gap in our differences and avoid unnecessary and dangerous polarity and conflicts, we need to be self-reflective and self-critical of our own ethical perspectives and our ways of seeing reality in conversation with others. The study of ethical reasoning offers an invitation to this process of self-reflection.
ETHICAL REASONING
In general, Christian ethics addresses the question of how we ought to live as Christians: how we can live faithfully as God’s children, or what it means to serve and follow Jesus. Christian ethical reasoning is concerned with how we discern God’s will; how we make right, good, or fitting decisions; and how we morally “authorize” our decisions.4
Christian ethical decisions necessarily involve an empirical (factual) dimension and a normative dimension. Empirically, we ask, “What is going on?” Normatively, we inquire, “What is God’s will for this issue?” For the former, we study the factual side of an issue (aided by social/natural science), while for the latter, we examine the Bible and other sources (Christian tradition, experience, and reason) and the values, norms, and rules offered by these moral sources. Ethical reasoning is a process that helps us to reach a final decision by asking, “What is a fitting, appropriate action in light of empirical and normative analyses?” Ethical reasoning is inevitable in the Christian life for several reasons.
1. In making a moral decision, we always ask, knowingly or unknowingly, whether my decision is good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. Would it please God? What would my family, friends, and community think of it? Would I regret it later?
2. Ethical reasoning is necessary to bridge the gap between our normative vision and our current social situations; as our society changes, so does our self-understanding. Many technological and sociocultural developments we experience today were unforeseen by the biblical writers. The historical gap inevitably exists, and ethical discernment is necessary for the faith community to be faithful to God and their neighbor.
3. Ethical reasoning is necessary to distinguish wheat from tares—to examine whether our moral view of a particular social issue, such as gun violence, is informed primarily by Scripture or by dominant social narratives, political ideologies, or cultural traditions. Many individual Christian responses to the complex ethical and justice issues of our day are often shaped more by their social locations, particular political ideologies, and favorite media channels than by the deep theology and wisdom of the gospel and Christian traditions.
Good ethical reasoning is indispensable for a good Christian spiritual life and discipleship—our growth as children of God. Our faith matters in our daily decisions and actions. We want our decisions and actions to cohere with our faith and Christian values. Ethical reasoning brings clarity, intelligibility, and coherence to ethical decisions and actions; it reduces the possibility of grave mistakes. In particular, living in a radically changing society, today we all carry a heavier burden of making important decisions than previous eras. In this context, ethical reasoning is a serious exercise of our faith that bears upon our daily decisions and actions as Christians.
In summary, one may say that ethical reasoning is a kind of art or skill necessary for discipleship. As the Christian life is a journey, ethical reasoning is part of the ongoing process of growth toward the fullness of Jesus Christ and living faithfully as Christians in the world. Its mastery requires time, effort, and many trials and errors. Every ethical decision should be pursued prayerfully and communally in the love of God and others, and be open to mutual testing, correction, affirmation, and challenge from brothers and sisters in Christ. The rewards are our better understanding of God’s will and a life lived more faithfully in our journey as God’s people.
IMPORTANCE OF A CONVERSATIONAL APPROACH
This book takes a dialogical approach in dealing with various issues in Christian social ethics. We have chosen sixteen complex, divisive issues in social ethics, and we have set forth diverse, biblically and theologically reasoned responses to them. Our goal is to help readers to better understand other Christians through the study of a wide spectrum of today’s complex and urgent social issues with global awareness, open-mindedness, and respect. For this, we believe that dialogue is the best approach.
The basic assumption of the book is that our differences are not necessarily detrimental or destructive but rather could be enriching and edifying to Christian discipleship and ministry. This can be the case when they are guided by a spirit of mutual respect and love, that is, if the participants in the debates “speak truth in love” (Eph 4:16) to each other. In light of this, other reasons for dialogue include the following realities.
1. Christians living in this world cannot but encounter people with different religions, ideas, and opinions and engage with them about important issues and events of society. We spend most of our time in workplaces, social organizations, and institutions other than churches. Hence for our witness, we need to better equip and refine our perspectives through serious and informed dialogue both within and beyond the church.
2. Ethical reasoning in a Christian context is never an individualistic task; it takes place in a community (whether it is a small group like Daniel and his three friends or a church council, as in Acts 15). Ethical reasoning reduces mistakes and fallacies, and it requires mutual testing and examination. Many heretics are also serious believers in their own way, and they make theological claims on crucial subjects, just as false prophets also appeal to God’s authority. Careful discrimination, examination, and mutual scrutiny are indispensable for the Christian life, together with mutual love and intellectual solidarity.
3. Dialogue offers a learning opportunity. Dialogue offers the opportunity to expand our vision and enrich our perspectives by learning from others, even to readjust our understanding of the moral nature of a certain issue and ethics. In short, borrowing the apostle Paul’s words, it is “the renewal of mind” (Rom 12:2).
Christians need to engage in constant dialogue because no one group exhausts the knowledge of God and God’s will on every complex moral issue. Life in a rapidly changing society requires fresh understanding of the issues and rigorous interpretation of the Bible. A plurality of witnesses is not necessarily a sign of inconsistency or disunity. The Bible itself respects diverse theological and moral voices, and the editors did their utmost to include them all without compromising the unity of the whole. While the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is final, one may consider that the New Testament offers four distinctive voices of witness to Jesus’ life and ministry with different theological nuances and moral emphases. As God is transcendent and mysterious even in God’s revelation, one voice alone is neither perfect nor sufficient to address the complex and profound mystery of God. The knowledge of God is like a rainbow; light has seven different colors in its spectrum, and it cannot be reduced into one. To do so is to commit the fallacy of reductionism, even distortion. For example, the biblical idea of justice addresses three aspects: need, merit, and equality. No one of these alone is sufficient as a principle of justice. Knowing these three dimensions helps Christians to maintain a multifaceted dimension of justice in our relationship with others.
Blind loyalty to a single ethical view to the exclusion of others may result in a distortion in understanding God’s will and moral reality itself. Even a view that is pertinent and compelling at one time may later lose its persuasive power, especially in a different sociocultural context. Hence as Jesus taught us, we need to be alert because the times are changing (Mt 16:3), and the Spirit may be blowing in new directions (Jn 3:8).
Some readers might ask, Is comparison among different ethical positions, views, and reasoning possible? Is it possible to assess whether a particular ethical reasoning is relatively more valid than others? Our answer is affirmative. Just as we know that some sermons are better than others, there do exist more valid and plausible ethical interpretations in each time and place.
Each ethical position or perspective can be assessed in terms of faithfulness, analytic cogency, normative appropriateness, coherence, relevance. That is, we can compare and assess different ethical perspectives in terms of (1) whether its undergirding theology (understanding of God, Christ, Spirit, human nature, Scripture, eschatology, etc.) is faithful to the Bible and the core Christian confessions; (2) whether its empirical analyses are scientifically valid; (3) whether its choice(s) of norms, values, and data are pertinent; (4) whether its claims are logically coherent; and (5) whether its policy proposals and legislations are reasonable and capacious for promoting human flourishing and the common good.
Dialogue gives us the opportunity to understand the complexity around controversial issues and the richness of God’s revelation. Hence we need to listen to different voices, assessing their relative strengths and weaknesses. To do so will strengthen our discerning ability and Christian witness. Ethical reasoning, as practical wisdom, often is a matter of proportion, nuance, and balance, neither always clear nor necessarily black and white.
4. Dialogue helps us to avoid caricaturing people with different views. This is probably the only way to avoid the growing polarization within the Christian community around controversial social issues. A group of likeminded people often works as an echo chamber, and this echo chamber becomes the very source of reinforcing our biases, prejudices, and false certainties. Without this process of sincere dialogue, we may unnecessarily fear others. Even worse, we may demean and vilify them, becoming socially narcissistic and tribalistic.
Dialogue is central both to a Christian lifestyle and a political democracy that choses nonviolence over violence, persuasiveness over imposition, truth over blind obedience. Such dialogue is becoming increasingly rare in this era of social networks, with their penchant for ideological reinforcement. Dialogue is a way of practicing our faith: despite our differences, we recognize that we are part of the body of Christ and that we have covenantal obligations toward each other as brothers and sisters. This mutual covenantal fidelity and obligation is the basis for our dialogue. Our differences should not triumph over our covenantal identity and solidarity. Differences should not lead to caricature or demonization. No matter how passionate one is, no single social issue can exhaust the entirety of God’s justice or the complexity of human life. Rigid ideological purity often results in more harm and evil in the world. An ethical litmus test is a sign of reductionism and demonization. Demonization is a betrayal of our humanity and the gospel. Jesus told us not to hate or take revenge against our enemies but rather to love and pray for them. How we treat our opponents also is a matter of righteousness in God’s eyes.
In our dialogue, it is important to understand these issues in the context of a biblical perspective and the character of God. Christian social ethics is always based on Christian theology: who God is, what God’s relationship is with humanity and the rest of creation, and who we are to each other in God. Importantly, this deeper knowledge of theology helps us to avoid the mistakes of reification and reductionism. In an emotionally charged and politically polarized situation, we tend to reify our moral position on certain issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, gun violence). Together with the apodictic rules (“shall,” “shall not”), we need to examine the broad vision, values, and norms of the Bible, which are embedded in its key narratives, such as the exodus story and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Propositions and commandments alone are not enough. To examine a particular issue in a broader biblical theological context helps to expand our moral imagination and to inculcate civility in our conversation with others, resulting in generosity toward others holding different views.
For example, as Matthew Jones notes in chapter eight, a sexual ethic cannot be reduced to the matter of sexual intercourse alone. Sexuality or sexual relationship should always be viewed in light of the broad, relational, interdependent, covenantal nature of human existence. Sexuality is part of our covenanted life—how we relate to each other in a way that promotes the common flourishing in the world. Sexuality is part of the question, What is a good life that God intends for us? Thus it cannot be reduced to sensual pleasure alone; more important, it pertains to human relationships and embodiment.
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND DEFINITIONS
As an introductory book, our goal is to help readers become exposed to the range of different ethical perspectives and the rationales behind each position. Rather than avoiding them, this book accepts and highlights the tensions and conflicts that exist among Christians on controversial social issues. Informed by a wide range of perspectives, readers will have an opportunity to grow in their understanding of complex issues and enhance their ethical reasoning skills.
There could be numerous ethical approaches (both religious and secular) to any particular social issue, but we have chosen three or four representative persons (or groups) in Christian ethics pertaining to the issue. Even within each of these three or four perspectives, there might be several variations, emphases, and nuances. We do not deny that these differences deserve careful attention and discussion. However, our approach is to introduce the kernel of major ethical positions without getting lost in the details. That is, we focus more on the forest than the individual trees of Christian social ethics.
Variable. In each chapter, we identify and study important variables that ethicists rely on in shaping their ethical positions on a controversial moral issue. A variable is an element or a factor that is liable to vary or change in different situations or with different people. In Christian ethics, a variable refers to a certain theological idea, norm, value, or factual data (e.g., God’s character, human nature, the right of a fetus, justice) whose value each ethicist differently attributes or assesses in making a decision.
The choice and interpretation of a key variable reflects an ethicist’s particular theological, philosophical, and/or sociological assumptions—in the final analysis, his or her worldview. In other words, Christians, in their ethical decisions, make different theological and moral assumptions about God, human nature and destiny, justice, the mission of the church, the role of government, and so on.5 For example, Christians differ in their views of God’s core character (whether God is primarily loving and gracious or just and righteous), human nature (whether people are essentially good or selfishly corrupted), and the principles of justice (whether it should be based on merit, need, or equality). We call variables these weighty theological or philosophical ideas whose particular understanding impacts one’s ethical decisions.
The study of variables involves seeing which theological understanding, norm, or value takes priority for an ethicist and how it shapes his or her ethical perspective. A variable is like a rudder of a boat, whose movement sets the course for sailing. Understanding these variables—and how and why they are differently chosen and interpreted by different ethicists—is crucial for understanding an ethicist’s overall moral perspective. Hence one may say that variables are what shape the differences in ethical perspectives and conclusions among Christians. It is our hope that by carefully studying ethical variables, readers will come to a better understanding of different ethical perspectives as well as to begin to discover their own.
Ethical method. In Christian ethics, ethical reasoning and variable selection are closely associated with ethical method, which involves the theological and philosophical basis of ethical reasoning. Ethical method explains how and why different ethicists understand and interpret the same moral norms and values differently or choose different variables. The study of ethical method includes how and why an ethicist prioritizes various authoritative sources (the Bible, tradition, reason, and experience) and values or norms, how he or she understands the task of ethics, and how he or she empirically understands the moral issue in question. In short, ethical method studies what assumptions an ethicist makes regarding sources, values/norms, and facts in reaching a decision, and how a certain ethicist theologically and philosophically justifies his or her ethical decision—why a particular decision reached through ethical reasoning is good, right, and fitting. In this sense, one may say, ethical method is the meta-theory of ethical reasoning.
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
The book is divided into the four major groups: Ethics of the Globe (chapters one through four), Ethics of the Body (chapters five through eight), Ethics of Violence (chapters nine through twelve), and Ethics of Formation (chapters thirteen to sixteen). Obviously there are different ways to categorize these social issues, and several of the chapters could have fit in more than one category. However, we chose this way because broadly, Christian social ethics today cannot avoid its global scope, connectivity, and context; Christian communities cannot avoid the immediate or long-term implications of global physical and social phenomena such as climate change, global capitalism, urbanization, and immigration for our individual and social life. Additionally, Christian social ethics must address the issues that touch upon our bodies, such as health care, abortion, gender, and sexuality; this is especially the case today because average life expectancy has increased, and the advances of medical technology have profound impact on our bodies, transforming our self-understanding with new possibilities and challenges. Our collective life is afflicted by various kinds of violence (war, abuse of women, gun violence, and mass incarceration) that human brokenness and fallenness generates, and they are escalating for various reasons with globalization, economic utilitarianism, and competition. Christian social ethics must urgently speak to these painful realities. At the same time, Christian social ethics is concerned with the formation of our mind and character, seeing oneself and relating to others notably, though not exclusively, in the areas of education, social media, race, and disability. Again, although there is some overlap among the groups, we hope that our categorization helps the readers gain a better understanding of the distinctive scope, nature, and approach of this book.
STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTERS
Each chapter of this book is divided into six sections.
1. Real life opens with a case study or a narrative describing the actual experience of one person related to the issue being explored in the chapter. This adds a human, personal face. That is, the relevant social issue is not a cut-and-dried public matter decided by government bureaucrats and politicians, but it affects the life of a real person.
2. Real world offers a brief, updated overview of the global scope of this particular issue. This section, while quite limited in its scope, attempts to show how the issue is not confined to a particular society. It is our hope that this exposure prompts readers to explore how other communities are approaching the issue.
3. Range of responses constitutes the heart of our project. Each contributor offers three or four carefully reasoned, divergent, and at times even opposing positions on the response that the ethicists take. We have endeavored to present these positions without judgment or evaluation and portray them in ways that their adherents would recognize and hopefully accept as accurate.
Here are several questions you may consider in your study of each position. How does an ethicist’s theology inform his or her method? What is each ethicist’s understanding of God and God’s character? Which aspect of God’s character or attribute is prominent in the ethicist’s theology, and how is it reflected in his or her understanding of a particular ethical issue? What is an ethicist’s understanding of the empirical aspects of a specific issue? In other words, what does he or she think is going on with the issue, such as gun violence or immigration? What social theory does an ethicist implicitly or explicitly rely on in developing his or her perspective? What are the merits and limitations of the theory that he or she chose? How plausibly and coherently does an ethicist connect the empirical reality around the issue with Christian moral resources? In other words, does the diagnosis correlate with prescription? What are the distinctive contributions (or disservices) of an ethicist’s perspective? In your judgment, how would it impact the church and its ministry today and in the future?
4. Author’s own response follows. In light of the three or four responses, each contributor shares his or her own engagement with the issue, comparing relative strengths and weaknesses and identifying concerns with each ethical position. Each contributor’s view is not “the” answer to the issue but just one example of how to critically engage with the different ethical perspectives with respect and discernment. It thus endeavors to serve as a model for readers in their own ethical reasoning. We encourage readers to develop their own responses to diverse ethical positions, including the author’s own view.
5. Discussion questions come at the end of the chapter. We offer three to five discussion questions for individual reflection and group discussion that interact with the content of the chapter, with special attention to the range of responses, to guide comprehension, evaluation, and exploration of the various positions and their implications. Again, we have sought to present reflection and discussion questions in such a way that an adherent of each response would feel fairly represented. The goal of the discussion is not to win or convert other participants but to edify each other—to become better Christians.
6. Additional resources include bibliographies and links to specific resources for further study, including books, articles, videos, and web-based resources on the topic.
AN INVITATION
We hope that this book offers fresh opportunities for dialogue among Christians. Through studying this book, Christians in diverse traditions can be open and learn from different voices. By doing so, they will be able to enrich and expand their spirituality and moral horizons and reach a deeper understanding of God’s reign in Jesus Christ in diverse ways in history.
We hope that open, sincere, and civil dialogue in the study of diverse Christian moral traditions will help to reduce, if not completely remove, distrust and division within the body of Christ and contribute to the depoliticizing of rhetoric in our ethical discourse and to a better mutual understanding of people with different positions.
It is true that Christian ethics has political implications, since the Lord is the Lord of the world, and God’s reign reaches every inch of the world. However, this does not mean that we need to take a partisan side in politics. God’s politics is for the flourishing of humanity, other species, and the planet, not for one racial, ethnic, or gender group or a particular political party. In our social engagements, our goal is not political victory but prophetic witness to the truthfulness of God’s reign. Christian history shows many tragic occasions in which alleged doctrinal differences proved to be more about political power struggles or ecclesiastical hegemony. Politicians always want to “use” religion for their own personal gain and partisan purposes. Christians need to exercise a healthy suspicion and put a critical distance between themselves and these political attempts. When we overly identify ourselves with a politician or a party, we may commit the folly of discrediting the entire gospel later when that political leader or party fails. Our political decisions should be carefully discerned and morally informed through ethical reasoning rather than made out of a political ideology or partisan interest.
May God give us wisdom of heart and enlightenment, and may the Spirit move among us as the power of truth as we listen to each other in love.
1
Climate Change
Rebecca Shenton and John Mustol
REAL LIFE
“Pastor Charlie” has been pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Rockport on the Texas Gulf Coast for twenty-seven years. On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, tropical depression Harvey was off the coast with winds of thirty-five miles per hour—not a concern. But with unusually warm water in the Gulf of Mexico, Harvey rapidly strengthened into a category four hurricane and moved onshore. Pastor Charlie and others evacuated, but not all were able to leave. Harvey hit Friday night, August 25, with the eye passing directly over Rockport. Church members Annie and her husband, Bill,1 were unable to evacuate and rode out the storm barricaded in a closet in their home. It was the most terrifying experience of their lives. They survived, but their badly damaged house was condemned. Harvey lingered over southeast Texas for a week, causing heavy rains, historic flooding, sixty-eight deaths, and $125 billion in damage.2
Pastor Charlie returned after the storm to find devastation—homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed, and debris was everywhere. The church and his home were still standing but badly damaged. Some church members lost their homes. Recovery was difficult but encouraging as churches and the community shared resources and worked together as never before. Most members stayed in Rockport, but some moved away—including Annie and Bill. After their ordeal, they could not face another awful storm. Pastor Charlie noted that the storm exposed poverty in the community. Many who were poor suffered more because they were already living in inadequate housing and could not evacuate. “No longer can we turn a blind eye to these folks,” he said.
Although a few in the community had previously mentioned climate change, it has not been a priority issue. Pastor Charlie says that environmental changes in Rockport are obvious—increased shoreline erosion, higher tides, changing weather patterns—but connecting these to a slow, variable process like climate change is difficult. Besides, the church and community face more urgent concerns, such as caring for their families and one another. As Pastor Charlie put it, despite the experience of Harvey, people are just trying to put one foot in front of the other and get on with life as best they can.
We can draw two lessons from the experience of the people in Rockport. First, ordinary people are concerned with the immediate problems of life, not with a seemingly distant, slow, and variable process like climate change that presents only a potential future threat. For Rockport’s residents, Harvey was bad, but the last bad storm was Celia in 1970, almost a half century ago; it doesn’t seem like hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe. The connections between lifestyle, carbon emissions, climate change, storms, and sea level are not clear to most people, so it is hard for them to see the need for change. Second, as Pastor Charlie noted, those who are poor and marginalized suffer most from climate change. This is true globally and presents a profound moral problem for the affluent of the world, who bear greater responsibility for climate change.
REAL WORLD
Climate change or global warming involves the entire planet’s climate system. For over two hundred years, people have been burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—for their energy needs. Today, these fuels remain the major energy sources for our global economy.
Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG)3, which are emitted into the atmosphere through, for example, our cars’ tailpipes and factory smokestacks. The earth’s ecosystems remove CO2 from the atmosphere by absorption into the oceans and photosynthesis carried out by plants, especially in the great forests of the world. However, GHG emissions have increased several-fold while we humans have simultaneously been cutting down forests.4 As a result, the earth’s ecosystems can no longer absorb all the CO2 we produce, and atmospheric concentrations are rising—by about 40 percent between 1800 and 2017, from 280 to 406 parts per million (ppm). This is almost entirely due to human activity, and mainly fossil fuel use.
GHGs are normal and necessary. By increasing the heat-retaining capacity of the atmosphere, they warm the earth by 20-30ºC (35-55ºF), making it suitable for human life. Of course, GHGs and the climate have always varied. For example, in the last 2.5 million years, warming and cooling cycles have caused a series of ice ages. But our current situation is unique because we are raising GHG (mainly CO2) levels far faster than ever before in earth’s history, causing global average temperatures to rise rapidly—about 1.0ºC (1.8ºF) since 1900.5 A warmer atmosphere contains more energy and moisture, leading to more frequent and intense weather events such as hurricanes, rainstorms, and droughts. Also, warmer temperatures are melting glaciers and the polar ice caps, warming the oceans, raising sea levels, and causing changes in ecosystems, while rising CO2 levels are causing ocean acidification.6
Human behavior is the most important yet the most uncertain factor in understanding the future of climate change. Its global scope means that global cooperation is required to address it. This brings up the enormously complex and difficult topic of climate change politics.
Although we have known about climate change since the nineteenth century, it became a public issue only in the 1980s. The United Nations took up the issue and formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, a cooperative international body providing scientific information on climate change and its ecological, political, and economic impacts. At this time, it has produced five reports, the last one in 2014. A special report focusing on the importance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 to 2.0°C was issued in 2018.7 A sixth report is due out in 2023. In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was formed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also called the Earth Summit. Since then, nations continue dialogue in a yearly Conference of the Parties (COP). In 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which imposed some modest reductions in emissions on developed nations but not on developing countries. Participation has been limited, but some nations (mainly in Europe) have sought to meet these reductions with mixed results. The annual COP meetings have been the principal venues for pushing toward the goal of a global agreement on climate change. After much delay, such an agreement was signed by 195 nations, at the COP 21 meeting in Paris, France, in December 2015. This set a limit of 1.5-2.0ºC rise in global average temperatures to be achieved through emissions reductions by all nations, including developing nations. Unfortunately, the Paris Accord is voluntary and has no firm mechanisms for accountability. Nonetheless, many political leaders and activists have hailed it as a landmark event. Its effectiveness was significantly weakened in June 2017 when President Trump withdrew the United States from the accord.
Despite these agreements, global GHG levels continue to rise, illustrating the extreme challenge of climate change. Some factors that complicate its politics include: (1) disputes between the wealthier, more developed nations of Europe and North America (Global North), whose development and affluence have depended on fossil fuel use, and poorer, developing nations of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia (Global South), who want to use fossil fuels for their own development and hold the Global North responsible for their historical emissions that caused the problem in the first place; (2) the rise of economic neoliberal ideologies that favor unfettered capitalism, resist government controls, and view climate change regulations as a threat to economic freedom; (3) our current overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels, impeding our ability to envision alternatives; (4) the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change if we fail to act, tending to paralyze our thinking and acting; and (5) people’s focus on the more immediate concerns of life—self-care, family, jobs, and security rather than long-term consequences for their children and grandchildren. There are many other factors, but these illustrate the extreme difficulty and complexity of the political problem of climate change.
If we continue our present course, CO2 levels could exceed 800 ppm by 2100, and temperatures could rise by 4ºC (10ºF).8 Such a world would be much harsher with frequent storms, floods, droughts, higher sea levels, and displaced peoples. Although we cannot predict the exact timing of these changes, unless we act to reduce GHG emissions, they will happen. All people must be engaged, especially Christians who worship the God who is Creator and Lord of all the earth.
RANGE OF RESPONSES
Like many other issues, climate change and other environmental problems have become politically polarized in American society. Those on the political left and most moderates generally accept anthropogenic climate change and support, albeit weakly, action to address it. By contrast, those on the political right, including many conservative Christians, tend to deny anthropogenic climate change and oppose action to address it. Moreover, many people resemble the people of Rockport, Texas, who are not particularly concerned with climate change but probably would be if it impacted their lives in a more tangible way and events such as hurricanes were more clearly connected to it. Thus, we see a left-right divide with a moderate middle that characterizes present-day America and the Christian church.9
We have chosen three scholars whose work we think is helpful for Christians as we approach this issue (and who reflect this left-right divide). Of course, they do not cover the diversity of Christian views on climate change. First, theologian-activist E. Calvin Beisner argues for a form of creation stewardship through economic activity and trust in God’s providence. He acknowledges that the world is warming but denies that human activity is causing this. He relies on human intelligence, ingenuity, and free-market capitalism to improve people’s lives and overcome problems. Second, theologian Cynthia Moe-Lobeda is concerned with global ecological justice. She recognizes that climate change is not only caused by individual humans but also by the political-economic systems we have created, and she argues that we must act in ways that fairly share responsibility and burdens, past and present, within the global human community. Drawing on liberationist and ecofeminist thought, she frames her argument in terms of what she calls climate justice and climate debt owed by affluent societies of the Global North to those of the Global South. Third, biblical scholar Richard Bauckham emphasizes our relationality and membership as finite creatures within the community of creation (human and nonhuman). We must embrace our humble place within ecosystems in interdependent relationship with other creatures. Moreover, all three scholars affirm a Christian duty to care for those who are poor, although they approach this in different ways.
Table 1.1
POSITION
VARIABLE: CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
MAIN CLAIMS
REPRESENTATIVE
Free-market, divine providence
Not caused by humans; impacts are not significant
Stewardship and care of poor through free-market economics, undergirded by divine providence
E. Calvin Beisner
Eco-justice
Caused by humans and human-created systems; impacts are significant
Ecological degradation and social injustice are inseparable and systemic
Cynthia Moe-Lobeda
Creaturely relationality
Caused by humans; impacts are significant for humans and nonhumans
Humans are finite members of creation who must recover our creaturehood and respect its limits
Richard Bauckham
Free-market economics and divine providence. E. Calvin Beisner is cofounder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a conservative interfaith organization that opposes environmental action on many fronts, including climate change, and supports a free-market approach to environmental stewardship. Beisner agrees and adds that we can trust a wise and sovereign God who has designed a resilient earth and who will care for us no matter what happens.
Beisner claims that while the earth may show a recent warming trend, there is no credible evidence that humans are causing this. Although atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have risen, these increases are tiny, and temperatures do not correlate with CO2 or GHG levels. Furthermore, the global climate system is extremely complex and unpredictable, and our understanding of it is limited, so any predictions we make are at best uncertain.10 Moreover, proposed measures to combat climate change will be costly yet have little impact, so policy changes and expenditures are not warranted.11
Beisner argues further that in contrast to the fear and alarm evidenced by environmentalists, the Bible assures us that a wise God has created a robust and self-correcting climate system. God our Creator foresaw all that humans would do on earth, and he “made the world fit to sustain us as long as He intends us to be here.”12
Furthermore, human beings are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28) and so possess intelligence and ingenuity, as evidenced by the wonderful modern technology, abundant goods and services, and built environments that surround us and allow our flourishing.13 Stewardship of creation involves extending human control over nature, exploiting the earth’s resources through economic activity and work. But this requires that people have rights of life, liberty, and property within free markets where they are rewarded for their creativity, risk-taking, and work. In this way we generate wealth, which is essential to our stewardship of the planet. In fact, for Beisner, Christian creation stewardship is economic activity.14
The Scriptures require us to care for those who are poor in conformity with God’s law (Rom 13:8-10), and this is best done through economic development, which requires fossil fuels. Poor nations should use fossil fuels for their development just as rich nations did. It is our Christian duty to ensure that these fuels are available to developing nations so they can grow their economies and lift themselves out of poverty.15 Mandatory reductions in GHG emissions advocated by environmentalists would hurt the poor by depriving them of these fuels. Thus, by impeding the economic development of poor countries, environmentalists condemn them to the very poverty and environmental degradation they want to prevent. For Christians, this is unjust and must be opposed.16
Beisner says that the real threat we face today is not anthropogenic climate change but the environmental movement itself. He calls it a grave threat to the Christian church and “the greatest threat to the survival of western civilization.”17 Environmentalism hurts the poor, undermines our freedoms, jeopardizes the economic system, and moves us toward centralized global governance.18 Hence for Beisner, a proper Christian response to climate change supports increased use of fossil fuels, minimal government, free markets, and economic growth.
Eco-justice. Lutheran theologian and ethicist Cynthia Moe-Lobeda holds a joint appointment in theological and social ethics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California. Her views are largely the opposite of Beisner’s. She argues for Christian ecojustice, uniting concern for the social impacts of globalization and industrialization (e.g., wealth disparities, poor working conditions) with concern for their ecological impacts (e.g., pollution, climate change).19
The overarching theme of Moe-Lobeda’s work is structural evil: by our participation in the economic systems that are embedded in our globalized world, we unwittingly harm others in multiple ways. Those harmed the most are the world’s poorest people who live in the Global South, as well as millions of the poorest in affluent nations. In addition to facing ecological and economic challenges resulting from globalization (e.g., multinational corporations putting their factories in countries where there are fewer regulations regarding worker health and safety, lower wages, and fewer restrictions on pollution), people in the Global South are also the most susceptible to the consequences of global climate change. Island nations, subsistence farmers, and those who live along low-lying coastlines prone to flooding will face catastrophic consequences unless GHG emissions are rapidly reduced.
Climate change is a paradigmatic manifestation of our globalized economic system, which does not recognize the limits of the planetary ecosystem and thus threatens its very health and existence.20 Because of this, our economic system in its current form is not ecologically sustainable, particularly because of its reliance on fossil fuels. Hence, to address climate change, we must make fundamental changes in this system to obey ecological limits, reduce GHG emissions, and promote economic equity. We need appropriate and responsible businesses and entrepreneurship that pursues ecological sustainability rather than global megacorporations focused on maximizing profits, operating in international spaces, and exploiting local peoples and ecosystems without accountability to nations, laws, or citizens.21
For Moe-Lobeda, climate change presents a “moral crisis” for our world. However, the responsibility of those in wealthy nations is invisible because it is our participation in a global system (rather than individual actions) that is contributing to the suffering and even death of poor people around the world. At the heart of this crisis is what she calls climate justice: the impacts of climate change are falling disproportionately on the poor in the Global South, while we who live in the affluent societies of the Global North and who are responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions past and present are suffering less. Climate justice means that the wealthy of the Global North owe a climate debt to the people of the Global South, and this debt continues to grow as we live out our everyday lives.22
Theologically, Moe-Lobeda’s argument rests on the understanding that God’s creation is good and that all humans share in a global community and are called to participate in God’s “life-furthering” work of tending creation rather than acting in ways that undo God’s creative work. The earth will provide enough for all if we are able to moderate our lifestyles and live frugally, taking proper consideration of ecological limits and the rights of other humans (and nonhumans) to share in earth’s blessings.23
Additionally, humans have been created in the image of God and have been given the vocation of loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves (Gen 1:26; Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18; Mt 22:36-40). My neighbor is anyone whose life impacts mine or who is impacted by my life; this includes nonhuman members of God’s creation. Love, therefore, is an ecological-economic vocation that seeks “ecological sustainability, environmental and economic equity, and economic democracy.” As biblical love and justice are inseparable, this vocation requires us to work toward a more equitable sharing of the responsibilities and burdens of climate change among all people on the planet.24
So how are we called to respond? We must first become aware of what is going on. We need to develop our moral perception, learning to look beneath the surface of our actions to the power structures that circumscribe the lives of all on the planet.25 Then we need to change our lifestyles and work for greater justice for all members of creation. This includes the following.
1. We must take seriously our involvement in the structural sin and evil permeating our global economic system. This difficult work requires us to pay attention to climate debt; it also requires us to attend to the voices of those who are on the underside of the global economic system, for example, agricultural workers, garment workers, miners, and the thousands who live and work in garbage dumps in the Global South.
2. Rather than being immobilized by the immensity of the problem, we need Spirit-guided vision to see that change is possible. We can develop a vision of what could be—what true love of neighbor and climate justice look like in our own lives as well as ways to get there.26
3. We must repent of our current death-dealing ways and engage in a changed way of life at the individual, family, community, national, and global levels.27
4. We must begin building strong, inclusive local communities and in particular strong churches that can undertake these challenging tasks.28
5. We must work toward a global economic system focused on people rather than profits, one that respects the limits of our ecosystem.29
