Christian Ethics: “Why?”

According to Wikipedia, Christian ethics “is a branch of Christian theology that defines concepts of right (virtue) and wrong (sinful) behavior from a Christian perspective.” To be honest, it really should just be called “ethics, with a theological bent.” Whatever you call it, it’s what I am going to be studying it at seminary and I would like to tell you why.

I feel as though my life was the epitome of middle class America. It’s more than just being white and in suburbia, though. It’s a way of thinking.

It’s being embarrassed for other people when they loudly voice their disapproval of “the system.”
It’s reasoning that we should stop conversations about race and gender biases because they only lead to more discrimination.
It’s telling others not to be offended because you’ll only cause trouble.
It’s about never wanting for anything because you don’t understand what it is to “need” something.
It’s being entitled to happiness at all times; and complaining when things don’t go your way.

To be clear, this is not about the way I was raised. My family taught me better; and I’m especially grateful to my sister for never letting get away with such lazy thinking (though you could have been nicer about it. Love you! 😛 ).

There’s lots of things (nature, nurture, etc.) that caused my thinking to become so insulated. And I can only look back in embarrassment at some of the ridiculous things I consistently said, or did, just a few years ago.

Like announcing my friend’s name in a stereotypical Japanese announcer voice, because he was Japanese, and I was entertained by it.
Recycling stupid jokes; particularly of the Helen Keller and women, variety.
Recycling stupid Jewish jokes with the excuse of “it’s OK, I’m Jewish.”
Watch hours of porn because I was single and “didn’t want to hurt ‘actual women.”

So what changed? During my time in Bible College I had already felt something turning inside of me. By the end of it all, I didn’t feel as though I recognized myself. Events were happening in my life that forced me to re-examine the things I held deeply. It turned out that it wasn’t my convictions that needed changing: it was my heart. My life and words simply weren’t reflected in the things that mattered most to me.

I didn’t know where to start, so I just started reading people I knew I would disagree with. I didn’t think women should be senior pastors, so I read Rachel Held Evans and Sarah Bessey. I didn’t think that racial disparity was a big deal, so I read Eugene Cho and Ta-Nehisi Coates. I didn’t think being Jewish, or Jewish studies in particular, was even relevant so I began to read Krista Dalton.

And the more I read them the more I found myself asking more questions of, not just myself, but the world. The point of reading authors who I inherently had biases against wasn’t to suddenly change my mind, or even challenge their views. I needed to hear what they saw. To feel what they felt.

I changed because of it; and I am a better man for it.

My newfound passion for ethics comes from understanding that there are so many who are like me. People struggling to see why the world suffers the way it does and invent reasons to do nothing about it because it’s just easier that way. For the sake of the Kingdom of God I simply can’t live like that, anymore. I want to find a new way by discovering the ancient one.

So please pray for me as I move ahead in Seminary. God knows I need every bit of it. And equally as important is the need for others to come along side me. Real discipleship doesn’t happen in a vacuum and while I am sure my professors and fellow students will be able to help me here; I will need to rely on other voices I’ve grown to trust over the years.

Theological ethics might not sound like the most ground breaking of disciplines; but as we move forward it may turn out to be one of the most foundational for future generations.

Advertisement

When Biblical Support for the Death Penalty Masquerades as Moralism

Before the topic of terrorism, and other foreign policy news, dominated the airwaves in the early 21st century, the issue of the death penalty seemed more prevalent in political conversation. Most objections to it are reactionary; protests streaming in as a man who still claims to be innocent is strapped the chair and injected with a concoction that will end his life. This time, however, it was a botched execution in Oklahoma which seems to have caused the issue to flare up.

Al Mohler recently posted his thoughts about why Christians should support the death penalty. He presents a list of Biblical references for his support, along with some moral cajoling. 

To start, I’m was really pleased to see Mohler being so outspoken against the economic and racial disparity in the application of the death penalty. Because it isn’t just that you’re more likely to be sentenced to death if you’re black, but also if the victim was white. Nor does he believe that capital punishment should be used all that frequently, or as an instrument of vengeance. 

His use of the Bible, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Mohler goes right for the jugular in Genesis 9:6 where God declares to Noah, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”  Yet, just two verses previous to this, God also states, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Apart from the recent Noah movie, I’m not too sure anybody is making the argument for Christian vegetarianism. 

He then transitions towards the New Testament where Paul writes in Romans 13:4 “for [the ruler] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrong doer.” This is all in the framework of Paul encouraging the Roman church to submit to earthly authority. But in using this quote, however, Mohler leaves himself in a precarious position: What if the government were to abolish capitol punishment? I don’t believe he would suddenly feel obliged to agree with the government position simply because they changed their minds about the Justice system.

There is also a glaring omission in his write up: Jesus. Mohler could have possibly argued that the His acceptance of a crucifixion as an argument from silence. Or that Christ made no attempt to relieve the consequence of the two men crucified beside Him. 

This is because, in reality, Mohler’s position has little to do with a Biblical mandate for capital punishment. We see this when he writes of a larger, cultural context where, “our cultural loss of confidence in human dignity and the secularizing of human identity has made murder a less heinous crime in the minds of many Americans.”

His chief concern is that sin doesn’t feel like it carries the consequence it should in our society. In his mind, the value of human life is decreasing and there is a relationship between that value and our perspective on murder. 

It’s one thing to acknowledge the Bible’s implicit endorsement of capital punishment; it’s another entirely to advocate for the death penalty while simultaneously declaring that it there is racial bias. By acknowledging the unjust nature of the death penalty’s application, however, he’s made a conscious decision to sacrifice justice for (perceived) morality. Should true justice, however, really require a moral sacrifice?

I would certainly hope not!

The Art of Theological Gatekeeping

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” – Jesus (John 10)

In the world of sports, a gatekeeper is something of a 2nd-class competitor. He’s put years of work into his craft and achieved some level of success. His best years, though, are clearly behind him. Whether that’s due to advanced age of having maxed out his own potential he simply doesn’t have what it takes to be the best any longer. This doesn’t mean he isn’t useful. To the contrary, his new role makes him quite valuable as a measuring stick by which younger competitors can test their own skills; to see if they will surpass what the gatekeeper once achieved.

Within the world of Christianity, and Christian theology, it’s become fashionable to see oneself as a gatekeeper, or watchman. Rather than seeing themselves as 2nd-tier philosophers or theologians, they assume their positions as defenders and protectors of the faith. Their job: to guard the entrance, and exit, to the faith. In the context of theology, faith has a different word: Orthodoxy.

Independent minded folks feel that the pseudo-theological-gatekeeper role is a farce, and should be ignored at all levels. I sympathize with them. Some self-appointed guardians are so fearful and paranoid that they cause more pain to the people they’re supposed to protect than their enemies. They’ve turned their eyes in on the city believing there is more danger to be found within its walls then from the potential chaos outside of it. But this brings up another excellent point: There are actually enemies, from the outside, to be protected from.

So is the solution to dump the gatekeepers? I believe this leaves us with the very problem the so-called gatekeepers have encountered: a lack of accountability.

Sure, the watchmen will claim their accountability is nearly 2,000 years of established, orthodox writings and teachings in regards to the faith tradition. To which those who stand across from them will agree, and then proceed to present their scholarship which has been ignored by them but is equally as old and immense as their counterparts. The “Orthodox” team calls the others heretics and wolves, while the others label them pharisees and legalists.

I think the solution is to actually have gatekeepers…but in the sporting context. Men and women who act as measuring sticks, rather than reenforced steel walls, challenge us in ways that keep us accountable. In this sense, we’re training others up to recognize danger and how to deal with it. This doesn’t mean there will be 100% agreement, nor does this eliminate conflict. The discipleship process, however, doesn’t demand those things; rather, it calls us to follow Christ when we hear His voice.

And sometimes, He speaks through the gatekeepers.

Do the Ends Justify the Means for Steven Furtick?

There is this tendency, within me, to happily chime in with an “amen,” whenever I see or hear something I agree with. And why not? To be unified in heart and mind with another is a good and powerful thing. Is there any reason to keep our agreements to ourselves? Of course not. I will loudly, boldly, and joyfully stand with those who, with earnest, stand with God.

So must our “no’s,” be any softer? Less bold? Or not couched within the joy Christ?

For lack of a better word: No!

There have been countless instances when, in the name of Christian “unity,” people are encouraged to be silent in their disagreements. Most (that I know) are well meaning, of course. Some are afraid of a fracture within their respective churches. Others are concerned that, if you make a big fuss over nothing, you’ll distract from the good things God has done/is doing.

In response to the news that Steven Furtick manipulated hundreds of people into getting baptisms by strategically letting congregants walk up to get (re)baptized in order to “break the ice” for guests, they say things like, “I have personally grown in my relationship with God because of Steven Furtick.” They’ll defend his practices because it gets the results they’re searching for.

“It’s manipulative, disingenuous, and unethical to use groupthink tactics in order to promote baptism,” I say. “Stop tearing down a brother in Christ,” is the reply.

I refuse to believe that it is in the common interest of believers (see, unity) to promote, encourage, or be passive when presented with this sort of deception, within the Church. In what way is God blessed by such disingenuousness? It’s disgraceful!

Speaking on an ethical level, we must ask ourselves, “Do the ends justify the means?” You can attempt to let this slide as a minor issue because “no one got hurt.” The truth is, however, that people are hurt by this. There are people within that congregation (and others) who will question the validity of their baptism. Non-believers will level the charge of “cult” to the Church for the use of psychological tactics; and probably mock God, because of it. The person who has truly mocked God, however, is Steven Furtick, and men like him who routinely answer the question, “Do the ends justify the means?” with a simple, “yes.”