Rev. David Holwick C
First Baptist Church
Ledgewood, New Jersey
January 16, 2000
1 Corinthians 13:1-8a,13
IS IT EVER RIGHT TO DO WRONG?
I. Ethical dilemmas.
A. Case studies:
1) This June our church may have a mission trip to Haiti.
It is one of the poorest nations in the world.
And one of the most corrupt.
I am driving supplies over to the worksite where we are
building homes for the poor.
On the way, a policeman pulls me over.
I have done nothing wrong, but he will not let me go until
I pay him an incentive - a bribe.
It's not a huge amount - perhaps $5.00.
Do I pay and get to the worksite, or resist and risk the
loss of our supplies?
2) Another example:
You get a request for a letter of reference regarding
quite average Joe Smith.
He helped at Camp Lebanon last summer.
Do you describe his sterling character, unflagging service
to humanity, and brilliant intelligence in glowing terms?
After all, reference letters that hint of anything short
of sainthood are the kiss of death.
Or do you write that letter with pinpoint honesty?
Or do you tell the bald truth?
B. The more we know about people, the less ethical they seem.
1) Just consider the ethical behavior of these presidents:
a) Franklin Roosevelt: died with mistress standing by.
b) Dwight Eisenhower: lied about U-2 spying plane.
c) John F. Kennedy: promiscuous, maybe stole votes.
d) Lyndon Johnson: promiscuous.
e) Richard Nixon: lying and obstruction of justice.
f) Jimmy Carter: lusted in his heart.
g) Bill Clinton: lusted in the Oval Office.
C. Traditional standards of morality are falling.
1) Right now U.S. Supreme Court is hearing case of N.J. Boy
Scout leader who was expelled for being homosexual.
New Jersey's Supreme Court said it was solely due to
bigotry that he was kicked out.
Thirty years ago no one would have questioned what the
Boy Scouts did.
What has changed?
2) Even Christians are confused about right and wrong in
today's society.
a) Amy Grant's impending divorce, Sandi Patty's adultery...
b) Are laws/ethics of the Bible still valid?
c) How do we apply them?
II. "Situation Ethics" by Fletcher has had a huge impact.
A. His premise - a long list of rules doesn't work.
1) Most of our "laws" are so rigid we only give them lip
service.
2) In reality we flout them because they don't fit reality
of life.
B. Fletcher's conclusions:
1) Having multiple rules which are absolute leads to moral
conflicts which cannot be resolved.
a) Obeying one law causes us to break another law.
b) Husband tells his wife they are poor, so she should
rob a bank.
1> If she robs a bank, she is stealing.
2> If she doesn't, she is disobeying her husband.
2) We can have only one absolute, and therefore one law.
a) That law should be the law of love.
1> Don't asking what the rules are, or what is right
or wrong.
2> Instead, find out what the most loving action
would be in that situation, and do it.
b) But Fletcher has trouble defining what love is in any
given situation.
C. Three approaches to Christian ethics:
III. Teleological theory: some rules take priority over others.
A. Teleo means end - the final results matter the most.
1) Biblical laws are in a hierarchy or pecking order.
a) Some are more important than others.
2) When rules overlap, choose to follow the highest one.
B. Examples in Bible.
1) Proverbs 12:22 states that "the LORD detests lying lips."
a) When Pharaoh ordered the Jewish midwives to kill all
Hebrew baby boys, they disobeyed.
b) Pharaoh confronted them about it, and they lied to him.
c) God's response? He rewards them. Exodus 1:15-20
2) Jesus broke Jewish law by eating with sinners. Matt 9:10-11
a) The Old Testament forbid contact with defiant sinners.
Numbers 15:30, also Psalm 1:1
b) Jesus was obeying a greater rule concerning the
redemption of all people and loving the unlovely.
3) God may demonstrate His own hierarchy of ethics when He
declares: "To obey is better than sacrifice." 1 Sam 15:22
a) The command to sacrifice is not necessarily negated.
b) But the simple act of obedience is elevated above the
rule of sacrifice and given greater value.
C. This theory can supply a more humane side to law.
1) Its followers would have aided Jews in Nazi Germany, even
though it was against the law.
2) They would break one biblical rule - obeying government
(Romans 13:1) - in order to achieve the ends of several
biblical rules - such as loving neighbor as self
(Mark 12:31), or defending the oppressed (Isa 1:17).
D. Downside - does the end always justify the means?
1) Authoritarian governments crush people "for the greater
good."
2) Slightly shady actions can be rationalized away in view of
achieving a worthy end:
"I can leave my wife because my difficult marriage makes me
ineffective as a Christian."
3) Scripture warns that our hearts are "deceitful above all
things." (Jeremiah 11:9).
4) There is danger in setting ourselves up as judges over
which commands really need to be obeyed.
IV. Virtue Ethics theory: the greatest of these is love.
A. This approach looks at ethical decisions through a grid of
virtues such as love, joy, peace, temperance, and patience.
1) These biblical virtues (fruit of the Spirit) define our
purpose and help interpret the meaning of biblical rules.
2) We find virtue ethics at work in 1 Cor. 13:1-3, where Paul
says that faith and even martyrdom count for nothing if
love is absent.
B. About these qualities the Bible makes an astounding claim:
"Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:23
1) That is, no biblical law should ever be interpreted in a
way that goes against these qualities.
2) God's intention is that we learn these virtues as a way of
life - a witness to God's own character.
C. The downside.
1) It is possible that a person, in the name of gentleness,
can become so passive and all-tolerant that he or she
can no longer confront sin as wrong.
2) Likewise, an ever-joyful person, upbeat from dawn to dusk,
can run roughshod over a grieving person and ruin a
relationship.
3) Learning the virtues involves a lifetime of exploring the
Scriptures, prayer, and accountability relationships
with other growing Christians.
V. Divine Command theory: obey all rules.
A. This theory promotes a simple idea - the moral rules contained
in God's Word are good, true, and obligatory.
1) The Bible is filled with rules.
a) The Jews say the Old Testament has 613 commandments.
b) Jesus did not come to eliminate them, but fulfill them.
c) He stressed obedience to commands: "If you love me,
you will obey what I command." John 14:15
Popular billboard: "What part of 'Thou shalt not"
do you not understand?" - God
2) Bible rules, given by God for people in all cultures, are
still the best (and perhaps the only) reliable way for
Christians to address moral questions.
3) Life presents us with virtually no conditions under which
it is permissible to disregard Biblical commands.
B. Trusting God for consequences.
1) Sometimes perfect obedience might appear to lead to
undesirable consequences.
2) We have to obey, and trust God to handle the outcome.
3) An example comes from Corrie ten Boom's The Hiding Place.
Corrie's sister was determined not to lie, even to the
Nazis.
When soldiers came to the door, looking for healthy young
men to work in their ammunition factories, she told them
the truth.
"Where are your men?" the soldiers demanded.
"Under the table," she replied.
Her nephews were, in fact, under the table - in an
underground room.
The trap door that led to it was under the kitchen table,
hidden by a rug.
The Nazis glanced under the table, concluded the woman was
crazy, and left.
If you want to be a stickler, you'll notice she did intend
to misled the soldiers.
Maybe she could have said nothing.
Or even told the truth.
If they are sent to ammo factories, couldn't that still be
from God? Esther 4:14 --
"For if you remain silent at this time, relief and
deliverance for the Jews will arise from another
place, but you and your father's family will perish.
And who knows but that you have come to royal position
for such a time as this?"
C. Do Biblical rules ever collide?
1) The assumption of the other theories is that having lots of
rules always leads to moral conflict.
a) We are forced to choose one over another at some point.
b) But does is this really true?
2) Many of the conflicts are imaginary, not real.
a) Not every Biblical law is absolute.
1> We are to obey the government - but then the
government is defined as something which honors
the good over evil.
2> A bad government does not have to be obeyed,
as Revelation 13 makes clear.
b) Not everything Biblical people do is moral.
1> Important to assess what is commended or condemned.
2> Rahab lied, but she is commended for siding with
Israel, not the lie.
3> Samson was a hero who slaughtered Philistines -
but he also ended up a blind slave.
c) Choosing one law over another can easily lead to
rationalization.
1> "What is right?" becomes "What makes me happiest?"
VI. God's laws are good, not burdensome.
A. Accept his wisdom.
B. Accept his help.
C. Disobey at your peril.
=========================================================================
Discipleship Journal #104, March-April 1998
"Is It Ever Right To Do Wrong?" [abridged]
Making ethical decisions when commandments seem to collide
By Mark Fackler And Christopher Bunn
...
As we wrestle with the issues of integrity and ethics, certain
thorny problems emerge. In some situations, it appears that biblical
commandments must be broken (e.g., the command not to lie) in order to
honor others. But can breaking biblical rules ever be the best course
of action? Is lying always a breach of Christian duty? Aren't some of
the Bible's rules subject to higher-order commandments, making
scrupulous rule keeping itself a possible breach of Christian duty?
To answer these questions, we must examine the three major ethical
theories propounded by Christians and others: divine command theory,
teleological theory, and virtue ethics theory. After we have examined
these, we will test a sample case with each theory.
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY: OBEY ALL THE RULES.
This theory promotes a simple idea - that the moral rules contained in
God's Word are good, true, and obligatory. Bible rules, given by God
for people in all cultures, are still the best (and perhaps the only)
reliable way for Christians to address moral questions.
Proponents of divine command theory say that life presents us with
virtually no conditions under which it is permissible to disregard
scriptural injunctions. They point to certain of Jesus' statements,
such as, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15)
and, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and
teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
heaven" (Matthew 5:19).
Under conditions in which perfect obedience might appear to lead to
undesirable consequences, those who live by divine command theory obey
and trust God to handle the outcome. ...
Yet, divine command theory occasionally runs into complicated life
situations in which the application of one biblical rule leads to
disobedience of another. For example, what if a woman's husband
demands that she get an abortion? Should she follow the command to
submit to her husband, or the command not to kill? Or, on a more
common plain, what if your best friend asks if you enjoyed her dinner
party, when it was interminably boring? Do you obey the law of truth
or the law of love? Clearly, we need a strategy for understanding the
intention of God's laws for us, the "heartbeat" behind the rules, as a
means of discerning the wisest application of the Bible's rules.
Corrie's sister, after all, certainly intended to mislead the Nazis,
even if her words were technically accurate.
TELEOLOGICAL THEORY: SOME RULES TAKE PRIORITY OVER OTHERS.
This theory revolves around getting to the goal. The good end that
must be reached determines the means required to get to that end. This
view says that moral and even biblical laws possess an implied
hierarchy that requires certain rules to be elevated and others to be
subordinated or discarded.
Support for this theory can also be found in Scripture. Though
Proverbs 12:22 states that "the LORD detests lying lips," God rewards
the Hebrew midwives for breaking the law, then lying about it, in order
to save the lives of baby boys (Exodus 1:15-20). God Himself tells
Moses to lie to Pharaoh about the Hebrews' purpose for going into the
desert (Exodus 3:18).
Jesus broke Jewish law by eating with sinners and publicans (Matthew
9:10-11). While one rule stated that friendship with such sinners was
to be avoided - harking back to the rules concerning defiant sinners
(Numbers 15:30, see also Psalm 1:1) - Jesus was obeying a greater rule
concerning the redemption of all people and loving the unlovely.
God demonstrates His own hierarchy of ethics when He declares: "To
obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Samuel 15:22). The command to
sacrifice is not necessarily negated, but the simple act of obedience
is elevated above the rule of sacrifice and given greater value.
Teleological theory can supply a more humane side to the rigid
reading of the law. Its followers would have aided Jews in Nazi
Germany, even though it was against the law. They would break one
biblical rule - obeying government (Romans 13:1) - in order to achieve
the ends of several biblical rules - such as loving neighbor as self
(Mark 12:31), or defending the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17).
On the downside, this theory contains the ever-looming danger of
generating an "ends justifies the means" mentality. Slightly shady
means can be rationalized away in view of achieving a worthy end: "I
can `exaggerate' in this fund-raising literature because we need the
money for the ministry," or even, "I can leave my wife because my
difficult marriage makes me ineffective for the kingdom." Scripture
warns that our hearts are "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 11:9).
There is danger in setting ourselves up as judges over which commands
really need to be obeyed.
VIRTUE ETHICS THEORY: THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE.
This third approach looks at ethical decisions through a grid of
virtues such as love, joy, peace, temperance, and patience. These
biblical virtues define our purpose and help interpret the meaning of
biblical rules. We find virtue ethics at work in 1 Cor. 13:1-3, where
Paul says that faith and even martyrdom count for nothing if love is
absent. ...
We know which virtues to cultivate because the Bible lists them ...
About these qualities the Bible makes an astounding claim: "Against such
things there is no law" (Galatians 5:23). That is, no biblical law
should ever be interpreted in a way that contravenes these qualities,
because God's intention is that we learn these virtues as a way of
life - a witness to God's own character.
Of course, it is possible that a person, in the name of gentleness,
can become so passive and all-tolerant that he or she can no longer
confront sin as wrong. Likewise, an ever-joyful person, upbeat from
dawn to dusk, can run roughshod over a grieving sister and ruin a
relationship. Learning the virtues involves a lifetime of exploring
the Scriptures, prayer, and accountability relationships with other
growing Christians.
THIS IS A TEST.
How might these theories apply to the ethical dilemmas we face in
everyday life? Let's examine what a believer should do when asked to
write a recommendation for a mediocre worker.
If you applied divine command theory, you might point to verses such
as Ephes. 4:25 ("Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and
speak truthfully to his neighbor") and Col. 3:9 ("Do not lie to each
other"). You might also recall that God does not lie, and that, as His
children, our lives should be characterized by truth. Under this
theory, the reference letter would contain an honest assessment of Joe
Smith's strengths and weaknesses.
Under teleological theory, you would first take a look at the big
picture and determine your goal in this situation. What is the
greatest good? Helping Joe Smith get a job? Giving the potential
employer a true picture of Joe's assets - and liabilities? You would
weigh these biblical values against one another and determine which is
most important. You might also consider what damage might be done if
Joe gets the job - that is, you might be more likely to recommend him if
he is manufacturing clothing than if he is in the medical field, where
mistakes are life-and-death matters.
Virtue ethics theory might suggest a different course of action,
based on the goal of love. You would consider what the most loving
course of action would be - both for Joe and his potential employer.
Loving Joe would mean doing everything possible to help him get a job.
But loving his potential employer would also mean telling the truth
about Joe's work. Perhaps you would, in the end, write an objective
and honest reference. But you might also offer to help your friend
develop some of the qualities he lacks, or steer him toward a position
that better suits his ab
