The discussion centered on the morality of premarital sex. The debate was heated. Opinions varied. Some thought it was in variably permissible. Others viewed it as always wrong. A few thought it might be OK in certain situations. One or two found it difficult to make up their minds.
I listened for a while and then suggested that we try to formulate a Christian perspective on the whole question. One girl reacted immediately. "This question," she proclaimed, "is about real life and has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity."
It struck me as strange that a 15-year-old Seventh-day Adventist girl should so totally divorce sexual morality from biblical Christianity. After all, do we not as a church espouse a morality grounded firmly in biblical principles and Christlike virtues? Are we not a "peculiar people" in terms of both lifestyle and moral reasoning? Do we not educate our young people to "have the mind of Jesus"? These are not just academic questions; they reflect a quest for moral understanding inherent in most, if not all, of us.
As one writer has stated, "the question of right and wrong elbows itself into prominence wherever human beings exist." 1 We might ask, however, whether we have maintained the capacity to deal with these questions in a decidedly Christian way.
Traditionally it was held that morality and religion were inseparable, the one flowing from the other. In Christian countries morality needed no basis or justification other than the Christian religion. People deduced their social duties from supernatural laws that they considered immutable, eternal, absolute. To neglect these laws was to be morally bankrupt.
We see a different picture in 1988. Now we live in a pluralistic society. We must exercise tolerance and understanding, we are told, in order that we might all coexist happily. Multiplicity abounds, and consensus on moral issues is well nigh impossible to come by. Values once considered immutable are now seen as relative. This, we all agree, is the sad state of the world. But could it be that as a church we run the risk of becoming so consumed by this plurality, so consumed by the "need" to be relevant, that our own moral reasoning begins to accommodate itself to the prevailing climate?
Modern pseudofoundations
Take the pragmatism increasingly evident in the abortion debate during the late 1960s. On April 25, 1967, Colorado became the first American state to enact an abortion statute along the lines suggested by the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute (ALI). 2 A few months prior, Norman St. John Stevas, an English Catholic and member of Parliament, had warned American Catholics that they would have to employ new arguments and a different strategy if they wanted their contribution to the ALI discussion to remain ideologically relevant and politically effective. In order to win over the majority, St. John Stevas suggested an abandonment of the traditional theistic approach and the adoption of art argument that was "likely to gain wider comprehension and support." 3 Politics, of course, is all about the art of the possible, and in a largely secular, pluralistic democracy, lawmaking often involves compromising between the ideal and the achievable. But what about in the church? What about in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
In a recent Ministry article Michael Pearson observed that the Adventist approach to this same question has undoubtedly been a pragmatic one. He pointed out the danger that "Adventist moral action may sometimes lack consistency and may gradually become merely an ethic of self-interest." 4
Pragmatism need not necessarily lead to an ethic of self-interest, of course, but it seems a shaky foundation on which to build a truly Christian ethic. How many times have we as pastors, for example, failed to speak out clearly and unequivocally on certain moral issues because "we might not be understood," or because "we don't want to appear legalistic," or because "we cannot afford to lose any more of our young people"? All of these concerns are legitimate, but their legitimacy does not negate our responsibility of holding firm to what we believe to be morally right.
We are encouraged to reason through our moral positions. Being rational is part of what it means to be human—but to what extent should we allow reason to dominate our moral decision-making? Certainly the Bible does not oppose reason, but reason alone cannot be the sole arbiter of right and wrong. Ellen White makes the point that "reason must ac knowledge an authority superior to itself," 5 and when we consider the ex tent to which sin has impaired our reason, the statement seems all the more appropriate.
Rationality is the byword of the secular humanist, but the humanistic approach deifies man instead of God. It encompasses moral duty toward man but not toward God. Under it, morality becomes simply an exercise in rational thinking. We cannot allow "rational thinking" to so dominate our moral reasoning that it becomes indifferent to spiritual insights, because even "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:25, NIV).
Some suggest that we should let each decide according to his or her own conscience. No doubt a good act will be done from a good conscience, but it does not necessarily follow that to act from conscience automatically makes an act good. Nowhere does the Bible represent the conscience as being a perfect, unerring organ. Indeed, we are left in no doubt that the conscience, too, can be debased by sin (1 Cor. 8:7), or so seared as to be insensitive to moral truth (1 Tim. 4:2).
Even when the conscience is morally sensitive, Scripture does not represent it as unerring and perfect or self-sufficient and complete. Rather it portrays it as growing and in constant need of instruction. C. F. D'Arcy refers to the Bible as "the great moral educator of the Christian conscience." 6 So to elevate con science to the level of moral arbiter would be to place it above that by which it ought to be informed.
Possibly the most seductive line of moral reasoning is that which suggests that the situation ought to determine what we should do. Basically, the situation ethicist asserts that we cannot define good and bad as such, that good and bad are not essential qualities, but are determined by the situation. This existentialist emphasis on the immediacy of experience and the freedom to react spontaneously to every situation that life presents deprecates any notion of moral principles or rules applicable to all situations. Interjecting the proviso that we respond to every situation with love only raises the question of how we determine what the loving thing is.
True, "there must be a situationalist element in every worthwhile ethic," 7 and circumstances can alter cases (e.g., Rahab's story, Joshua 2). But suggesting that "love is for people, not for principles," 8 or that "love only employs law when it seems worthwhile" 9 surely is stretching the point. These are the subtle errors that situationalism introduces.
Perhaps for professional ethicists situation ethics is dead and buried, but in various ways it is alive and well in much popular moral thought. How many times have you heard the argument "It all depends on the situation" when discussing a moral issue with a member of your congregation? The subtlety of the position is that in many cases the situation does have a bearing on our moral decisionmaking. But as Harmon Smith and Louis Hodges have written, there are two poles between which all Christian decisionmaking must be done—"the reality of God on the one hand, and the concrete, contingent situation on the other." 10 Clearly, we need to look beyond pragmatic considerations, beyond reason, beyond conscience, and beyond the immediate situation to find a moral framework that is truly Christian.
The bedrock of Christian ethics
In the first place, we must recognize the need for divine revelation. More than anything, Christian morality is the morality of a revealed religion. What we know to be right we know largely because God has revealed it to be so. Christian morality derives its character, content, and power from God and not merely from philosophical speculation or human convention.
At the very least, Christian morality must be conceived within the womb of a religious ethic. As the distinguished ethicist Paul Ramsey notes, Christian ethics cannot be separated from its religious foundation. 11 The ancient Greeks were mistaken to believe that ethics could be sustained independently of religion, supported only by philosophical considerations. Such a system was bound to fall short, and true enough, as one writer ob serves, "religion was severed from morality and morality from religion, and the outcome of the ancient world was an immoral religion and an irreligious morality."12
Insofar as Christian ethics is theocentric, it involves doing the will of God. Augustine's "love and do what you will" does not suffice if it allows us to act apart from, rather than in harmony with, the will of God as revealed in Scripture. Jesus spent His whole life doing His Father's will (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40), and Scripture likewise urges us to discover what God has willed (Col. 1:9) and to stand firm in that will (Col. 4:12). Paul even went so far as to reprimand the Jews for blaspheming God's name among the Gentiles by failing to do God's will when they knew it perfectly well (Rom. 2:24; cf. verse 18).
The notion that we should identify the good with the will of God cuts across secular ethics at almost every point. It dethrones the humanly contrived deity of reason, places conscience under a higher authority, calls our pragmatism into question, and reveals the emptiness of situationalism. It exposes anything less than obedience to God as sin. David's words "against thee, thee only, have I sinned" (Ps. 51:4) reveal his recognition of the fact that the will of God is the moral standard by which all men are judged.
Building on the true foundation
But Christian morality depends as much upon divine power as it does upon a divinely revealed moral law. So it is as much an ethic of grace as of duty. While secular morality may make demands, it is powerless to bring about their fulfillment. But God in His mercy provides for us the power to do what we could not do otherwise. Law and grace are two sides of the same moral coin, because while we are morally incapable (John 5:30), if it were to depend wholly on divine grace, we would be left morally irresponsible (see Rom. 6:11).
An ethic that is not truly Christian leaves us either incapable or irresponsible or both. Hence the need for prayer both as an aid to discerning God's will and as a means of acquiring the moral strength to act in conformity with His will. So often it is the case that we know what we ought to do but, like Paul, we lack the strength to do it. Very appropriate, then, are the words of Jesus to His disciples in Gethsemane: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak" (Matt. 26:41, NIV).
Ultimately, Christian morality finds its locus in the body of Christ. It is found within a body of people to whom God has granted a special relationship. The church should offer the believer both a climate for moral growth and resources for moral understanding not found in secular society, since "the world does not know God." We are not morally self-sufficient and cannot take it upon ourselves to assume moral independence if that means a disregard for the moral positions of the corporate body. Ellen White makes the point that "when anyone is drawing apart from the organized body of God's commandment-keeping people, when he begins to weigh the church in his human scales, and begins to pronounce judgment against them, then you may know that God is not leading him." 13
Our morality is inextricably tied up with our association with "the body," and there is a sense in which the individual and the corporate body are indivisible. Herbert Waddams says that "within the church the moral aspect is not to be thought of as demands on the individual by the church, for that gives the impression that the church and the individual are different and separable. The truth is that the Christian life can only mean what it is intended to mean when it is part of the church, when the individuality of the person is fulfilled and wholly integrated into the life of the people of God." 14
Christian morality, then, is a revealed morality commanded by God, yet made possible by the power of His Spirit. The word of God rather than the speculation of man supplies its content. It is a morality rooted in a covenant ethic in which God calls a people to be holy. This is not to say that Christian morality is a morality of ready-made answers, or that it re quires little thinking on our part. Far from it. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that in seeking all the facts relevant to a moral issue the Christian must "interpret those facts with a mind renewed by the Holy Spirit, and within a framework of meaning controlled by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." 15
As Paul foretold, Christian morality is under attack (2 Tim. 3:1-4). People are justifying as morally permissible many things that would have been labeled immoral less than a generation ago. Developments in modern technology appear to be outstripping our ability to comprehend fully their long-term ethical implications. Some are saying that the church has lost its moral authority in society. Whatever the truth of this speculation, Paul offers an intriguing perspective: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you" (1 Cor. 5:12, NIV).
The world may have gone into moral bankruptcy. We in the church must not. Since we are the body of Christ, let us keep our morality Christian.
1 Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 21.
2 The ALI published a tentative draft of a
revised statute on abortion that was finally accepted
in 1962. Its purpose was to introduce into law a
positive declaration of the justifiability of abortion
in certain and specific categories of cases. American
Law Institute, Model Penal Code: "Proposed
Official Draft" (Philadelphia: American Law
Institute, 1962), Section 230, pp. 187-193.
3 Norman St. John SteVas, "Abortion Laws,"
Commonweal, 85 (1966), pp. 164, 165.
4 Michael J. Pearson, "Abortion; The Adventist
Dilemma," Ministry, jaunary 1988, p. 6.
5 The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View,
Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1942), p. 438.
6 C. F. D'Arcy, Christian Ethics and Modern
Thought (New York: Longmans, 1912), p.99.
7 John Macquarrie, Twentieth-Century Religious
Thought (London: SCM Press, 1967), p. 320.
8 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New
Morality (London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 31.
9 Ibid., p. 71.
10 Harmon L. Smith and Louis W. Hodges, The
Christian and His Decisions (Nashville: Abingdon,
1969), p. 31.
11 Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (New
York: Charles Scribner, 1950), p. 1.
12 Ernst Luthardt, quoted by Henry Nash, Ethics
and Revelation (New York: Macmillan, 1899), p.
50.
13 Ellen G. White manuscript 21, 1893.
14 Herbert Waddams, A New Introduction to
Moral Theology (London: SCM Press, 1965), p.
103.
15 John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), pp. 11,
12
