Expressions of Faith

an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Contemporary Issues (Page 8 of 8)

6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

November 22, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Some have found it helpful, when seeking to understand the scripture passages that speak of the place of women in the church and in marriage, to consider also those passages that speak of Christians in the context of slavery. These passages assume that there is slavery, and describe how to live the life of Christ within the context of a society that includes slavery. In the past, these passages were used by some to justify the institution of slavery. This type of argument for slavery is rarely heard today – and rightly so. We can appreciate a Christ-like attitude in the social context of slavery while understanding that slavery is a social institution that God does not endorse as his ideal. It is an evil of a fallen world; slavery is a form that cannot remain intact as the kingdom of God comes in its fullness.

Therefore, we interpret passages that teach about the behavior of masters and slaves to be culturally or socially conditioned rather than as establishing the institution of slavery as God’s plan for human relationships. We can learn how to live in testimony to Christ when embedded in the social context of slavery. We can see how living the radical life of love and truth embodied by Christ would begin to bring into question the underlying assumptions upon which distorted social structures of a fallen world are founded. We extrapolate from these teachings to other similar but different contexts such as the relationship between employees and employers. We understand that these scripture passages teach us Christ-like relational attitudes toward work and authority in the context of slavery, while not teaching slavery as a Christian social ideal.

Texts about women in ministry roles and about marriage often parallel texts about Christians in the context of slavery. So, many see a parallel between the social context of marriage and the social context of slavery in scripture. Could there be some parallel between women in patriarchal societies and slaves in a social context of slavery? However, we know that marriage is not parallel to slavery in that marriage is a creation of God. And yet scripture testifies to the effect of the fall and the resulting curse upon marriage relationships: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This effect can be seen in the roles to which women have been relegated in fallen human society. We cannot help but see the corruption brought by the fall in our marriages and in our society’s attitudes toward marriage. It is important to work towards views of the place of women in society and marriage that honor God’s creative goodness in giving us the gift of marriage. It is important that we seek to move beyond that which is less than God intended.

We can readily see that not all attitudes and beliefs about marriage honor the teaching of scripture about human relationships and love. Similarly, Christians have realized that not all attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in society honor the teaching of scripture regarding human relationships and love. Might it be that some scriptures that speak of the relationship between men and women are speaking from within and to the social context of the time without endorsing the patriarchal order of that social context? Might they be speaking into that context regarding how to live in it as a follower of Jesus? Judging by the precedent of texts speaking in the context of slavery, it could be so. It seems to me that it certainly is so! For an example of this approach, see Gordon Fee’s article The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9.

Of course, the key is discerning what is inherent in God’s pattern for marriage and the relationship between men and women. God is author of the difference between men and women. What in our culture reflects God-created difference and what is a refection of sinful humans living in a fallen world? Do any of the scriptures that discuss the place of women in the church or in marriage teach within a context of cultural patterns that are less than ideal? Might these scriptures in some ways be similar to the scriptures that discuss how a follower of Christ is to live as a slave or a master of slaves – not teaching the cultural pattern of slavery or patriarchal marriage but rather teaching how one lives as a Christian faced with an imperfect or unjust pattern in one’s culture?

Most cultures at the time of the early church were strongly patriarchal, with some instances of local reaction against patriarchy. Women were generally not well-educated or formally prepared for leadership. Women were not allowed to be the disciples of rabbis who taught young men to understand and apply the Hebrew scripture they had memorized as boys.

Other parallels may also be helpful. Moses was given laws governing divorce. And yet Jesus taught that these laws were not a reflection that divorce was pleasing to God, but rather a concession to the hard hearts of men. There is a clue that may help us from Jesus’ response when questioned about divorce. Consider Matthew 19:3-8 [niv]:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In verses four and eight, Jesus refers to “the beginning.” Marriage since the fall is not as it was “in the beginning.” The relationship between men and women in general is not as it was “in the beginning.” What was it like in the beginning?

Next: 7. Beginnings

13. Further Reading – Links and References

November 22, 2011 / / 0 Comments

The main evangelical organizations formed to support particular views on women in family and ministry are good sources of references and information. The complementarian organization is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The egalitarian organization is Christians for Biblical Equality. Both of these organizations are God-honoring and Bible-honoring.

There are many books and articles on the topics of women in ministry and marriage, here is a list of some resources that I have found most helpful to explain the contrasting perspectives that prevail in evangelical Christianity today.

5. Christian Feminism?

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Feminism is not a movement well-regarded by many evangelical Christians today. Most feminist writers today portray religion in general and Christianity in particular as inherently patriarchal and unfair to women. Often Christianity is cast in the role of serving in the past and the present as a tool for the subjugation of women. This is, in my view, a great and grave misinterpretation of Christian teaching and thought.

The early pioneers to advocate for equal rights for women were nearly all Christian women (or men), in recent centuries often influenced by Quakerism. They sought political equality for women to vote and hold public office, the right for women to own property, and for the end of “chattel marriage” – all on Christian grounds. In the late 19th and 20th century, most were also ardent prohibitionists who saw alcohol abuse as a great social evil that primarily served to undermine the responsibility of men toward their families. They did not advocate for some of the issues associated with feminism today. Susan B. Anthony for example, an early feminist Christian, even referred to abortion as “child murder” and as a “noxious weed.”

John G. Stackhouse, Jr., a Christian writer and professor of theology formerly at Regent College and now at Crandall University, defines himself as a feminist today. Of course, he has his own definition of “feminist” that he uses to clarify what he means by the label. His definition of a feminist is this: Someone who champions the dignity, rights, responsibilities, and glories of women as equal to in importance to those of men and who therefore refuses discrimination against women.

Of course, we are still strapped with the baggage of meaning attached to the word “feminism” by the wider society. Whether or not it is helpful for a Christian to refer to himself or herself as a feminist will have to remain a discussion for another day. However, giving Stackhouse a chance to explain his perspective is useful:

Yes, women and men are biologically different, and so some sex-specific zones are real and therefore not arbitrary. I expect that the folk wisdom is true that men and women differ also in other essential ways, although there is currently nothing approaching a cultural consensus as to what those ways are. Feminists, therefore, do not have to be blind to real differences and their implications. In fact, many feminists emphasize that women and men are indeed different and that a large part of the feminist concern is that those differences be acknowledged and incorporated into our life together. Feminists of the sort I represent are those who resist what they judge to be arbitrary, ungrounded distinctions between men and women and the discrimination that attends such distinctions.

Interestingly, given Stackhouse’s definition and perspective, many Christians might consider themselves feminists, even (with qualification) some complementarians! I expect many egalitarians agree with his perspective, if not Stackhouse’s terminology.

Next: 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

4. Oppression

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Oppression (according to Dictionary.com):

  1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
  2. an act or instance of oppressing.
  3. the state of being oppressed.
  4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

For our purposes, definitions one and four are helpful to consider. The first definition assumes some standard by which to define what is burdensome, cruel, or unjust. This definition is particularly relevant for a follower of Christ. The standard by which we evaluate what ought to be in the life of one created by God is God. That is, what ought to be is what God intends. Anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended for that person by God is oppressing that human being. The normal result of this sort of oppression is a feeling of being burdened by troubles and adverse conditions, bringing us to the fourth definition.

Of course, one must start with the first definition and a reliable standard in order to accurately assess oppression. It is possible for human beings to feel oppression when there is none, or otherwise be incorrect in assessing oppression according to feelings. In a fallen world, humans often have inappropriate expectations that, when unfulfilled, lead to a feeling of oppression. While such feelings are worthy of concern, they are not the definition of oppression that we will use here.

But what about suffering under oppression? Is it right to dismiss the suffering that comes from oppression and consider only oppression in the abstract? Of course, Jesus cares not only about actual oppression, but also about suffering under oppression – and so should his followers. Any proper consideration of oppression will consider the suffering that occurs in those oppressed. The point is that we must begin with a standard of life by which oppression can be noted and defined rather than with feelings of oppression. So, to repeat, anything or anyone who restricts a human being from fulfilling the purpose intended by God for that person is oppressing that person.

Next: 5. Christian Feminism?

3. Observations on the Two Positions

October 8, 2011 / / 1 Comment

There are a number of observations that are important in setting a context for considering the matter of women’s leadership in the church.

Let’s begin with one of the most striking. The observation is this: both today’s complementarians and today’s egalitarians are radical reformers compared to nearly every traditional position in the history of the church on the nature and role of women. Church tradition has been nearly uniform in affirming patriarchy as the God-ordained order of things in all areas of life, including home, society and the church. (While Quakers, among others, have been a notable exception, one can observe areas of Quaker practice that differ substantially today from practice in centuries past.)

Complementarians are careful today to argue that women are of equal value before God – a proposition that directly contradicts teaching in church tradition. Egalitarians tend to focus on the idea that women should be eligible to minister in official capacities in a manner equal to how men are eligible for those same ministries. This idea also contradicts nearly all teaching in church tradition. No matter which position one holds, it is surely an innovation compared to the traditional patriarchal practice of the church through most of the course of Christian history. The writings of the church fathers and other leading figures in the history of the church are often so biased in favor of men and against women that they are embarrassing to read today.

Consider Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes.”

Or, read Tertullian’s “On the Apparel of Women”. (This is the writing in which he infamously refers to women as “the devil’s gateway”.) There are, in addition to these, many unsubstantiated quotations of Christian leaders on websites intending to decry the attitude of the church or Christians toward women. It is unsafe to trust in the truth of quotes for which no primary source attribution is given; some seem to be fabricated and repeated for shock value. (That is, if the site does not tell you how to find the quote in the original writing of the author who is quoted, don’t trust it.) And yet the attitude of historical leaders of the church toward women is easily shown to be compatible with neither complementarian nor egalitarian positions of today. Rather, a rather condescending patriarchy was the norm; women have generally been considered inferior to men even in the church.

I do not write to denigrate those who have held such opinions in the past, but rather to show that deeply significant and beneficial change has occurred. The prevailing attitudes of the past have not always been biblical. The attitudes of great leaders in the Christian tradition were bound up in their time and culture.

We must consider that all are bound in some ways as prisoners of culture and society, accepting with little question attitudes and opinions that will someday prove to us that God’s ways and thoughts are indeed higher than our own. In fact, we must be grateful that God does us the grace of not revealing to us all at once the full extent of our entanglement with sin and ignorance that give rise to thoughts, habits, and attitudes that make us (to be diplomatic) not as good as God designed us to be. A bruised reed he will not break, indeed – and let us give praise for God’s love and mercy that it is so!

In addition, I would argue, that in spite of embarrassing attitudes expressed at times by many of our Christian forefathers, that the place Christians have played in improving the lot of women in the world has been of vital and central importance, leading societies and cultures toward what Helen Barrett Montgomery termed “the emancipation of women through the gospel of Jesus Christ”. Christians have led in changing society toward attitudes and opportunities that more fully honor the image of God in women. Today, both egalitarians and complementarians take for granted attitudes toward women and opportunities for women that were nearly unthinkable merely a few short generations ago – except in the mind of God and those whom his Spirit had guided toward his more perfect will and ways. Those who have led the way to improving the treatment and attitudes around the world toward women have come primarily from among God’s people. They have acted to bring about positive change precisely because they believed that God called them to this work in faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Both complementarians and egalitarians argue today that women are not inherently inferior to men – that men and women are equally valued by God. Women are no longer seen as lacking sense and judgment, as being a sinfully seductive distraction to men, or as essentially inferior and incapable. The surprising thing to us these days is that so many church leaders in the past argued for restricting various types of ministry to men because they viewed women as inherently inferior. We find this surprising and distasteful because the general attitude of Christians toward women has improved. As a consequence, following upon God’s work among and through his people, the attitude of our society has changed, too. Praise God!

However, the attitudes of people in our society and others have not changed enough. Official policies are often good, but practice lags behind. Unfair and demeaning treatment of women remains common, both in the church and in wider society. The incidence of tragically poor treatment of women by powerful men remains so prevalent that it seems to warrant recognition as a system of oppression that remains in existence, in spite of much progress. It is a fundamental calling of Jesus’ followers to stand against oppression and injustice. Such patterns of sin directly oppose Jesus’ mission to bring fullness of life to God’s children.

Jesus, in his first reported sermon after a 40-day time of tempting in the desert, quoted Isaiah to define his ministry:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
(Luke 4:18-19 NIV)

Upon considering the place of women in family and church, there is work to be done in the name of Jesus. There is past oppression to be lifted and there are prisoners to be freed. There is blindness to be healed. There is good news for those who are prisoners of unjust patterns in this fallen world. Jesus’ people must lead the way in releasing the oppressed into the fullness of life to which our Lord beckons.

Next: 4. Oppression

2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family

October 8, 2011 / / 0 Comments

Among evangelical Christians in the United States, positions on women in leadership are polarizing into two main camps, most often labeled complementarian and egalitarian. Both camps can at times be uncharitable toward the other, and caricature is not uncommon. Both camps use scripture to justify their position; both are serious about respecting the authority of the Bible.

In short, complementarians believe that certain roles should be filled only by men. The complementarian view is that women and men are equal in value and personhood before God, but have different roles to fill in the church or family. One-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in marriage and family, while two-point complementarians believe that women have different roles in family and in the church. In particular, certain roles such as pastor and other leadership roles are not open to women, and (generally) women are not allowed to preach or teach in public worship if the meeting includes men. There are variations in practice, with more or less tolerance of exceptions for particularly gifted women with high-profile public ministries. Wayne Grudem and John Piper are leaders among two-point complementarians who are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. On occasion, complementarian thought is referred to as hierarchicalism by egalitarians; though this terminology seems not to be preferred by leading complementarians.

Also in short, egalitarians believe that ministry roles are interchangeable between men and women who are equally gifted. (This position is also known as biblical equality.) The egalitarian view is that all people are equal before God and have the responsibility to obey any God-given calling to exercise the spiritual gifts God has given them. Gender alone does not prevent any believer from exercising their spiritual gifts in obedience to God’s call to a ministry in the church or home; Gender alone does not grant privileges to any believer; no position within church leadership is reserved for one gender only. Those who hold this view do not believe that women and men are identical with no differences between them. Somewhat ironically, an expression common among egalitarians is that God has designed men and women to complement one another. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon Fee are prominent egalitarian writers. An organization representing this view is Christians for Biblical Equality.

It is important to note that both of these groups are conservative and Protestant. Both believe in the primary authority of scripture as standing above any church tradition or human tradition; for both groups, scripture takes precedence over anything that seems to contradict it. Both groups exhibit a serious desire to be faithful to both God and scripture. (Of course, there are some holding either of these positions who do not match this description. Disagreement with those who are not committed to the authority of scripture is not addressed here.) Those with whom we disagree on a particular issue but who otherwise show every indication of being faithful followers of Christ deserve our charity and respect. This is a disagreement between followers of Christ – children of God. We must approach it with humility and love for God, for one another, and for truth.

Sarah Sumner, in her book addressing this issue, Men and Women in the Church, writes:

God has not called me to enter the debate and settle the matter conclusively. He has called me to something higher and more painful. He has called me to repent from my sins, speak the truth, suffer for his sake, love other people and entrust myself to him who judges righteously. This is his call to all believers. In the past we have failed to follow in his steps. But that’s no excuse. It’s not too late now to make a better decision.

May we heed this advice.

Addendum: There are two additional views worth mentioning for the sake of completeness. One, which has some traction among conservative Evangelicals is called Biblical Patriarchy. This view might be characterized as “three-point complementarianism”. According to this view, males should be in leadership in church, home, and society; that is, women should have no leadership in society and indeed, should not work outside of the home.

A fourth view is “Christian Feminism”. This view distinguishes itself from the egalitarian position in that it seeks to redefine God in terms that contradict biblical teaching, giving contemporary feminist ideas precedence over scripture.

It seems to me that both the Biblical Patriarchy and Christian Feminism views are quite extreme. The Christian Feminism view seems not to take seriously the teaching of scripture. The Biblical Patriarchy view is a more extreme form of complementarianism that need not be considered separately. In my view, these positions have glaring deficiencies and are rarely considered viable options for evangelicals today; they will not be considered further in these articles.

Next: 3. Observations on the Two Positions

1. Introduction to Women in Leadership in the Church

October 8, 2011 / / 0 Comments

I’d like to consider the Christian question of women in leadership, particularly as it pertains to leadership in the church, but also briefly touch on the relationship between husbands and wives in a Christian marriage.

Much has been written on this topic, so why should I write? Well, there are two specific reasons for these articles. One is to stake out a place in the territory of Christian opinion on this matter. Careful, intelligent Christians dedicated to following Christ under the authority of scripture differ on the topic of women in leadership in the church and in how Christian marriages should be ordered. This is a matter with practical implications for church and family. Even when one is charitable towards those of differing opinion, there is the issue of how a particular local church will order its affairs and teach. Thus, there is need to explain a position for the sake of clarity in practical application.

Secondly, there remains a need for more general discussion and consideration of this topic. The last word has not been written, and many of the key ideas that one should consider are scattered across a broad range of reading material. Since this is a matter of practical importance and of more than passing interest to many, it is worthwhile to summarize some of the ideas relevant to the matter at hand and share references that interested readers might like to pursue.

Next: 2. There are two major positions on women in the church and family

Song on Reaching Seventy

June 8, 2011 / / 0 Comments

An article on aging in First Things quoted from the poem Song on Reaching Seventy by John Hall Wheelock. The article, Thinking About Aging is a good article. With meticulous reasoning Gilbert Meilaender considers issues around the desire to live longer or delay aging. But the last page of the article, in which Meilaender considers the impact love has on our desire to live is profoundly beautiful. It is here that he quotes Wheelock’s poem. Not yet seventy or even sixty, but seeing seventy coming down the road, I want to remember.

Shall not a man sing as the night comes on?
He would be braver than that bird
Which shrieks for terror and is gone
Into the gathering dark, and he has heard
Often, at evening’s hush,
Upon some towering sunset bough
A belated thrush
Lift up his heart against the menacing night,
Till silence covered all. Oh, now
Before the coming of a greater night
How bitterly sweet and dear
All things have grown! How shall we bear the brunt,
The fury and joy of every sound and sight,
Now almost cruelly fierce with all delight:
The clouds of dawn that blunt
The spearhead of the sun; the clouds that stand,
Raging with light, around his burial;
The rain-pocked pool
At the wood’s edge; a bat’s skittering flight
Over the sunset-colored land;
Or, heard toward morning, the cock pheasant’s call!
Oh, ever sight and sound
Has meaning now! Now, also, love has laid
Upon us her old chains of tenderness
So that to think of the beloved one,
Love is so great, is to be half afraid –
It is like looking at the sun,
That blinds the eye with truth.
Yet longing remains unstilled,
Age will look into the face of youth
With longing, over a gulf not to be crossed.
Oh, joy that is almost pain, pain that is joy,
Unimaginable to the younger man or boy –
Nothing is quite fulfilled,
Nothing is lost;
But all is multiplied till the heart almost
Aches with its burden: there and here
Become as one, the present and the past;
The dead who were content to lie
Far from us, have consented to draw near –
We are thronged with memories,
Move amid two societies,
And learn at last
The dead are the only ones who never die.

Great night, hold back
A little longer yet your mountainous black
Waters of darkness from this shore,
This island garden, this paradisal spot,
The haunt of love and pain,
Which we must leave, whether we would or not,
And where we shall not come again.
More time — oh, but a little more,
Till stretched to the limits of being, the taut heart break
Bursting the bonds of breath,
Shattering the wall
Between us and our world, and we awake
Out of the dream of self into the truth of all,
The price for which is death.

–John Hall Wheelock

On Orientations and Sex

May 24, 2011 / / 1 Comment

The main idea I want to get across here is that “if it feels good do it” won’t work as a way to order life. It is certainly not a reliable standard for Christians and really doesn’t work for anyone else, either – and we all know it!

Every question of Christian theology and living has to be considered in light of God’s story of the world as revealed in the Bible. How one understands this story will drive how one answers questions.

Roughly, the story goes something like this. God created everything, and it was good. The first humans chose not to trust God, and as a result of their rebellion human nature (and the rest of creation) became flawed. All mankind lives in a fallen condition; it impacts every aspect of our lives.

God, true to his character and purpose, took action to correct this situation. He began to form a new people for himself through whom to bless all the peoples of the world, bringing restoration. That people was Israel. With a mission and purpose framed by Israel’s culture and history, the eternal creator God entered into his creation as a man, Jesus. Jesus came to usher in the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom in which life would be lived as God intended all along. He was crucified unjustly, but bore on himself the sin of the world as he died – God’s gift to all who would trust him. Conquering death, Jesus rose and appeared to teach his disciples, after 40 days ascending to be our advocate with his Father while simultaneously sending his Spirit to be present with his people everywhere. Anyone who trusts in Jesus receives a new life from God and is restored into fellowship with the Spirit of God. This Holy Spirit empowers Jesus’ followers to be transformed to be like him. In God’s time, there will come a day when Jesus returns in power to complete the renewal of heaven and earth to the goodness it had in creation. Those who have trusted in him will join him eternally in this new heaven and new earth; and those who have chosen against him will be separated from him and the new creation.

The story is much richer than this brief outline, but this summary serves as a starting point for what follows. This context is important, because according to God’s story, nature as we know it today is flawed. It is “under a curse”. Our natural inclinations and orientations cannot be trusted, because they are distorted by our fallen nature. They may well lead us to actions that are not good. Some of our orientations remain toward what is good, but all are less than they should be. We know this and act as if this were true. Every human being experiences inclinations and orientations that he or she knows are toward what is not good. We know that we must resist them. (I am leaving aside consideration of sociopaths.)

From where do our orientations and inclinations originate? Some are present because we are created in the image of God. These must be trained and disciplined into maturity. Even these good inclinations can be distorted into fearsomely evil apparitions of what God intends them to be. For example, it is good for me to discern the beauty in other human beings. However, I should not allow my appreciation of another’s beauty to lead me into unfaithfulness to my wife or abuse of a minor, among other evils toward which I may experience a “natural” inclination. Similarly, it may be good for me to be outraged at injustice; but evil to allow myself to be controlled by rage even if that rage is inspired by injustice toward one who is weak and innocent. We fall short of what we know to be good.

When we receive new life in Christ, we are newly inclined toward living a life pleasing to our God. We desire to love others and are empowered by the Spirit of Christ to do so. We desire to know God and make him known, and to live as He has called us to live. There remains a struggle between the old life and the new, but over time through a life lived in obedient fellowship with Christ and his people we are changed to be more like Jesus.

Whatever the source of inclinations or orientations toward that which is not good, God has told us that we have them and that we must resist them and follow him instead. God assures us that he will supply what is needed to follow him into good and “flee” from what is evil if we will trust him. In fact, Jesus says that he is and that “all authority in heaven and on earth” has been given to him. It is the Spirit of Christ who is living in us – God’s people – empowering us toward good with the same power that raised Jesus from the dead..)

Christian ethics concerns itself with what we should and should not do, as directed by God. It is not so much concerned with our inclinations and feelings as it is with our actions. Consideration of Christian ethics is necessary because we experience inclinations and orientations toward what is not good. Were it not so, then we could simply act on all of our inclinations and orientations. And it would be good to do so. Instead, we train ourselves (for example) toward faithfulness to our mate, and toward respect and love for others even when we are often inclined toward usurping their place and possessions.

Human society employs the rule of law to enforce orderly obedience to a somewhat minimal set of moral behaviors. We know that some are inclined to act selfishly at the expense of others, so these laws are intended to improve society by protecting the innocent, enforcing a reasonable standard of justice. The rule of law can increase peace, prosperity, health, and order when justly and fairly implemented. As with ethics more generally, these laws would not be necessary if we could simply follow all of our inclinations and orientations. However, no code of law can fully specify the entire range of moral behavior. In addition, there is disagreement about exactly what constitutes moral behavior. Thus, our codes of law are more or less incomplete. We leave more difficult, less widely agreed upon, and less immediately critical moral behavior unspecified by law.

However, as Christians, we strive to “take every thought captive”. We are “transformed by the renewing of our minds” so that we “no longer conform to the patterns of this world”. And so we pursue the good as defined by God without being constrained to only consider what is “legal”. That is, many bad actions are not illegal and some good actions many be illegal in any particular human code of law. No code of law can capture the fullness of life with God; but we have God’s spirit to guide us. With the apostles, we must “obey God rather than men” while respecting the law and authorities when they do not lead us to disobey God.

This reasoning applies to our sexual lives. As a central part of who we are in Christ, Christian ethics applies to this area of life also. At issue is what constitutes the good sexual life according to the biblical story. There is really not too much difficulty figuring this one out. God intends that sex be in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s not a dating ritual. It’s not a party activity. It’s not something that friends do. It’s not something that you practice so as to be skilled for your eventual husband or wife. And so on. It’s an expression of love in marriage between a husband and a wife with the general potential that children may result. It is an expression of the union of a husband and a wife whom God has joined into one.

Once we’ve worked this out, then for a Christian it becomes a matter of pursuing the good in spite of any obstacles that intervene. Obstacles may come from our nature, from our environment, from the culture in which we live, or be of unknown origin. It is no different in our sexuality than it is in other parts of our lives. We are called towards the good. We have orientations or inclinations toward the good, or toward something else. We are called toward the good in either case. Sometimes it may be that our inclinations and orientations change as we grow to be more like Christ; sometimes they stubbornly and bewilderingly may not. We are called toward the good in either case. All Christians struggle with “natural” inclinations toward what is evil. Christian ethics simply does not give much significance to our inclinations and orientations. Our ethics are given by the teaching of Christ in spite of our well-known inclination toward what is not good. Our inclinations are rooted in a fallen world; Christian ethics are rooted in the moral vision to which we are called in Christ. Christian ethics are not “natural” to any of us! To lay down one’s life to love another is not easy; we must each day do battle with our natural inclinations to love as Christ loves us.

Ultimately, Christian ethics are governed by what will be – by that to which we are called to move rather than by that which we are now. (The fancy way of saying this is “Christian ethics are eschatological in nature”.) This perspective stands in stark contrast to the culture and philosophy of our day. Today’s ethics inconsistently assume that we are determined by our inclinations and that we are obliged to act according to these inclinations. Our culture is inconsistent in this standard because there remain actions which are viewed as wrong in spite of our inclination toward them. I am seriously annoyed by my neighbor’s noisy late-night party as I struggle to go to sleep; but I must not punch him in the nose. There are many examples.

As a culture, we have not yet understood the moral chaos that will ensue when anyone can claim they were simply following their inclinations or orientations into whatever bad actions they wish to embrace. As Christians, we must remain clear that as human beings created in the image of God and born anew by the Spirit of God we are capable of choosing to do what God has said is good in spite of old inclinations to the contrary.

There are many trails to follow from such a topic as this. Not least is the place of the Christian community as a place of both acceptance and transformation. We are called as a family to encourage one another into all good things, without condemnation – humbly speaking the truth in love that we may walk together in the light, bearing one another’s burdens. But those are topics for another time.

Newer posts »

© 2025 Expressions of Faith

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑