INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS

PART I

1
THEOLOGICAL AND BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS

1. Definitions

a. Ethics:
Etymologically, the word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos which refers to the customs or character
which distinguishes a particular people.
Ethics is the theory/science of the conduct of human life. It is the stand/position we take in the midst of our lived
experience in the world. Ethical questions are life questions that people encounter in the process of living and to
which they must respond in the reality of their own lives. Ethics deals with the foundational aspect of behaviour
rather than the personal moral behaviour. It analyses the factors that influence human behaviour (cultural, social,
religious, economic, psychological, sexual etc.)

b. Christian ethics:
Christian ethics is a branch of Christian theology that defines concepts of right (virtuous) and wrong (sinful)
behaviour from a Christian perspective. Various sources inform Christian ethics but “comprehensive Christian
ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical
principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience
broadly conceived.” Christian ethics, as a theological discipline is the reflection upon the question, and its
answer: What am I, as a believer in Jesus Christ and as a member of his church, to do? To undertake the
reflection upon and analysis of this question and its answer – this is Christian ethics.

c. Definitions by Scholars:
i. Hunter P. Mabry: Ethics is a discipline which seeks to reflect critically on morality with a concern for
understanding and consistency between purposes, means and consequences of human moral actions.
ii. J.S. Mackenzie: Ethics is the study of what is right or good in human conduct/behaviour.
iii. K.C. Abraham: Christian ethics is reflection on the Christian basis for moral action.
iv. J. Russell Chandran: Ethics is the science/discipline or the systematic study of human conduct, individual
as well as corporate/community.

2. Morality and Ethics

Traditionally, the word ethics has been used interchangeably with the word ‘morals’ which comes from the Latin word
mos meaning custom or way of life. Initially, terms like ethics and morals tend to be used to connote those duties
and responsibilities which persons have – to groups of which they are members and/or to some transcendent being –
with reference to right and wrong conduct or ultimate purpose of life. However, with the evolution of language, a
distinction between these two words and related terms is being observed by an increasing number of Christians.
Consequently, the term moral is now often used by ethicists in a restricted sense as an adjective to describe
behaviours of a people commonly regarded as right, good or appropriate, with the term morals being used a noun to
refer to the norms or principles held by a particular people regarding right or wrong conduct, while the term ethics is
increasingly used with reference to serious reflection on the basis of human moral conduct with regard to the
procedure of ethical thought.

Precisely because ethical issues involve the whole person, the fundamental issue is that of morality. Morality is
concerned with every course of actions that involves human beings.

3. Modes of Ethical Discourses/Different types of ethical arguments

2
A brief study of the basic models (methods/approaches)of Christian Ethics – Good, Right and Fitting(deontological,
teleological, responsibility-relationality, contextualmodels)

a. Deontology (RIGHT, ethics of obligation or duty):

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greekdeon, "obligation, duty"; “binding duty”) is the normative ethical
position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes
described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty".

This term appears to have first been used with its current meaning in 1930 in C.D. Broad’s Five Types of Ethical
Theory. Technically referred to as deontological ethics, the ethics of obligation or duty is concerned with
questions regarding what is right; it holds that there are moral laws and imperatives which persons have a duty
to obey, and it seeks to elucidate what these are – for example, the Ten Commandments, or constitutional
provisions regarding fundamental rights and fundamental duties. It is a feature of deontological arguments that
by nature they are absolutist. A deontologist thus recognizes that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must
be applied consistently to all situations. One must do one’s ethical duty regardless of the outcome or, to put it
more technically, the right action always coincides with the good thing.

Deontological ethics is not to provide us with rules for all situations in life. It set forth a methodology, stressing
upon reflective reason and upon the spirit or attitude in which we must control our lives. Our knowledge of
means may be uncertain; our ability to reach specific ends is limited. We can, however, will to do good and take
a universal or impartial and objective attitude. This mode asks: what law/laws is it my duty to obey?

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues
that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon). Second, Kant argued that it was not the
consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

b. Teleological (GOOD, ethics of ends/goods/aspiration):

Teleological ethics (Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”) is an ethical theory that holds that the ends or
consequences of an act determine whether an act is good or evil. Teleological theories are often discussed in
opposition to deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts themselves are inherently good or evil,
regardless of the consequences of acts. It is concerned with questions regarding the highest good or the final
goals of life toward which persons should aspire. It holds that there are certain goods or ends which are worthy
of complete commitment, and it seeks to throw light upon what these are. Eg.: the ‘Kingdom of God’, a classless
society. This mode asks: what is the highest good or end in life which I should seek to serve?

Teleological/Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that

deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather
than the outcomes of the conduct.

c. Responsibility-Relationality (FITTING):
The idea of responsibility is one of the fundamental concepts in Christian ethics. The entry of the concept of
responsibility, and the primacy it assumes in ethical theories, signals an expansion and an intensification of the
role of the human subject in ethics correlative to the modern withdrawal of God from the world. It is so central to
the questions of moral action, whether addressed by ethicists, philosophers or theologians.

In ethical discourse, the term responsibility came into general use in the languages of Western culture in the 17 th
century. As its etymology suggests, the most obvious meaning of the term ‘responsibility’ is accountability, being
answerable for one’s behaviour. Thus, it is within discussions of the conditions requisite for moral liability to

3
 praise and blame, punishment and reward, that the term is most frequently encountered. A deeper etymology
reveals another dimension: within the word for response is hidden the Greek word for “promise,” recalling the
practice of reliably performing one’s part in a common undertaking. In this sense, responsibility refers, not merely
to the conditions for imputability, but to the trustworthiness and dependability of the agent in some enterprise.

The focus is on the moral actor. In the earlier models the stress is on the act itself – its goal, consequence and
the nature. They are important, but they overlook the motive and its contemporary relevance.

The responsibility model is proposed by Richard Niebuhr to address these new concerns. The essential
character of Christian living is to live in responsibility before God and responsibility with others. Our action is
thus, relational and responsible. This method does not start with the question, what is the great goal of human
striving? Nor does it with the question, what is the Supreme Law of all? It starts with the question, how is the
divine will acting in this present time? And then how shall our actions respond in a manner fitting to the divine
action?

d. Contextual ethics:
The question is sharply raised today as to whose context are we talking about in Christian ethics? It is easier for
us to reflect on the realities of the context of the dominant groups and communities. The perspectives of rulers
and the elite have often been taken as normative for the task of ethical reflection. But today, we need to take
seriously the context of the marginalised. More specifically we need to reflect on the experiences of the dalits,
indigenous and tribal people and women. A majority of Christians in India belong to the marginal sectors. Their
experience of oppression and hardship as well as their spirituality are vital sources of ethical reflection.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

 Define ethics. What are the different types of ethical discourses? Which ethical discourse is appropriate in
your context?
 Is morality and ethics same or different? Explain.

B. THE BIBLE AND ETHICS

1. The uses and misuses of the Bible in ethics. The relevant method of interpretation

As the Bible becomes the most important principle to guide the ethical life of Christians, Christian ethics could not
exist without the Scriptures. Considering that the Bible becomes the fundamental basis for moral lives of Christians,
two factors can be assumed:

 First, the person itself, who is the Christian living the ethical life of moral agency
 Second, the communitywhich is the place where one has to lives his/her own ethical life.

4
Gustafson dismisses the reading of the Bible merely as moral law, ideal, or analogy in favour of a much more
encompassing recognition of the great variety of biblical norms, principles, precepts, images, parables, and
paradigms which shape, qualify, and inform the character and actions of both the individual Christian and his/her
community. Moral judgment cannot rest on the Bible alone because it is not the only place where we can discern
God’s activity. It has to be a dialogue with non-scriptural sources. He reminds us that the authority of the Bible is
dependent on theological and philosophical decisions about one’s understanding of God’s revealing of Himself and
one’s understanding of the task of ethics.

Edward Leroy Longtalks about three ways of relating the Bible to ethics.

 There is, first of all, the “prescriptive” approach in which the Scriptures are viewed as a book of law.
 There is the “deliberative” approach in which the Bible is the source of the guiding ethical ideals and
principles for the Christian life.
 The third type of Scripture use in Christian ethics is one of “relation” or “response.” It shows a pattern of
response for the moral life, rooted in an organic relationship of trust in and worship of God in Christ.
However, he warns that single use of the Bible would be unbiblical.

H. Richard Niebuhr writes, “The Bible has always been and will doubtless remain the chief source book for the study
of Christian ethics.” The old saying that the Christian ought to face life with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper
in the other rightly expresses the continual need to address the Christian faith to the contemporary situation. Before
dealing with the ethical issues, Christian ethics must first find its direction in the Scripture – firmly groundedand
rooted in the Bible. In relating the Bible to Christian ethics, one need to make a clear distinction between “what the
Bible meant” in its original context and “what it might mean” in today’s world and in today’s [Link] this
objective source of reference, Christian ethics will not function as it ought to be.

2. Major Old Testament Themes

a. Covenant
Covenant is a treaty between any two parties. It is a common factor in mutual understanding between people.
The Hebrew word Berith means breaking the covenant. The covennt is made by cutting the bird or animal.

Israel’s covenant is with God, the liberator. According to Anthony Ceresko, the basis of all covenant is that we
will be faithful to each other. Liberation and covenant have been broadened and deepened to include personal,
spiritual and existential dimensions. Covenant brings a common identity. It is an opening toward equality and
sharing of communal resources. There is commonness and unity. The people are to act according to the words
of Yahweh. The covenant provided by mechanism by which the diverse groups could transcend their differences
in forming a common bond with the single deity (Yahwism). This covenant with the liberating God became the
means by which these people could assert and affirm their claim of self-determination. They are in the sovereign
care of the covenant God. Within the context of obedience to the covenant stipulations they were in effect free to
determine their own conduct and control their own history. The covenant served as the basis and ordering force
for the society in ancient Israel regulating political, economic, and social relations as well as the religious
dimensions. Israel’s God was a liberating God, one who revealed himself in the midst of a struggle for liberation
and in efforts of the people to build a more just and peaceful human community. The covenant is to care for the
weak, marginalized people, sojourners, orphans and widows (Ex. 22:22ff, 23:5,9). It was also concerned of the
rights of the slaves (Ex. 21:2ff.). According to von Rad, OT covenant law of Israel is noted for its passionate
interest for the poor, slaves, strangers. The prophets stress clearly that the God of Israel watches particularly
over the rights of those who have no property and to whom justice is denied.

5
 The New Testament speaks of the new covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ
mediates a new covenant (Heb. 8:6-9:1; 10:15-17; 12:24). The church is described as the new Israel. The
concept of the universality of God’s concern expressed through the covenant is further radicalised. The Church’s
mission is to make known the universal love of God and his solidarity with all oppressed and marginalised
peoples.

b. Shalom
The Arabic word is Salam, Greek word is eirene. Shalom means where there is peace, trust, where everyone’s
welfare is taken care of. Shalom means harmony. It is a movement towards reconciliation. The aim of shalom is
basically the same as the Kingdom of God, i.e., the original intent of God in creation. The original intent of God
was lost when Adam and Eve sinned. The shalom was broken. The breach was restored by having a positive
relationship with God, neighbour, one another and nature. Shalom in community implies mutual care, willingness
to live for the sake of other’s welfare and having a common will and responsibility. There is an assurance of
health and prosperity. The total good of person was foreseen. The prophets were trying to restore shalom. That
is the mission of the prophets.

Shalom is defined as the integrity of a community (Gen. 43:27; Ex. 18:17; Judg. 6:23; I Sam. 25:6). Shalom is
linked with justice (Isa. 1:16-27). There is no peace without justice and no justice without peace. Justice and
peace are inseparably linked (Isa. 32:15ff.). Shalom is no longer simply expected in the future but it continues in
the present. Righteousness and justice are also closely connected (Isa. 32:17; Ps. 85:8-12). Paul uses the word
peace to indicate the new relationship with God that Jesus offered through his death and resurrection (Rom.
5:1,10). It includes reconciliation between the traditional rivals (Gal. 3:28). Colossians speaks of peace and
reconciliation that is extended to the whole of creation (Col. 1:20).

c. Justice
The Hebrew word for justice is mispat. This is related to the word equity (fairness) and equality. It can mean fair
distribution of resources. Justice is rooted in love, mercy and righteousness. It is defined as distribution of love.
Love and justice are closely related. Justice is understood as a principle, which should be applied in all aspects
of life. Whenever there is any kind of discrimination, there is a violation of justice. If there is justice, there is no
discrimination. We have to accept the personhood and dignity of everyone. The prophets were the staunch or
ardent advocates of justice. The whole focus of the prophets was in forming a just community, i.e., a community
where justice prevails. Justice is very significant in human relationship (Isa. 1:13-17; [Link], 3-7, Amos 5:24).
The prophets desire is that society should not be organised on feudal lines as it is a denial of justice. Justice is
upholding the rights of the members of a community. Members have right to freedom, equality, dignity and self-
determination. Justice is concerned with the upliftment of the marginalised and the poor.

d. Liberation
Liberation is the central concept of the Bible. God is the liberator. God leads people from bondage to freedom.
As God is the creator, he redeems the people who are marginalised and those who are under political, economic
and social oppression. God listens to the cry of the poor, the exploited ones. He looks for structural
transformation. The Exodus event and the deliverance from Babylon show the plan of God in the liberation of the
oppressed. He redeems the people from political oppression. He liberated the people from the clutches of evil.
Jesus was concerned of the Kingdom of God, and the Nazareth manifesto (Lk. 4:1 ff) implies the total
transformation of everyone. The emancipation of the powerless or the deprived, empowering dalits, tribals, and
women are the foremost concern of Jesus, the liberator. The biblical message supports the subaltern groups to
get away from the clutches of the dominant. A new society with new relationship is what Jesus foresaw.

3. Major New Testament Themes

6
a. Kingdom of God
The Kingdom of God is the key concept to the understanding of Jesus’ preaching, theology and ethics. Some of
the phrases like ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand’, ‘the Kingdom of God is in our midst’ and ‘Enter into the
Kingdom of God’ are so familiar to us.

Adolf Harnack believed that for Jesus, the Kingdom of God is not only in heaven, but also in the hearts of
people. According to him, Jesus differentiated between the first stage of the Kingdom that had already begun to
be realized in his preaching and healing and the completion of the kingdom which would be at the time of
parousia. It can be said that the Gospel contains the Kingdom of God, righteousness, agape, and forgiveness.
For Harnack, the content of the Gospel consists of ideas, values, principles, law, commandments, injunctions
and rules. Harnack opined that the Kingdom of God is present everywhere where love is exercised, selfless love
that serves.

Albert Schweitzer understands the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God as ‘interim ethic’ which is
applied to his disciples and the close community of Jesus, since Jesus was hastening the coming of Kingdom of
God. According to him, “the value of this (Jesus’ death) sacrifice for others consists in the fact that this suffering
which Jesus underwent is at the same time the inaugural act through which the new morality of the Kingdom of
God receives emphatic sanctions and new condition contemplated in the Kingdom is itself realized”.

According to Rudolf Bultmann, the Kingdom of God is supernatural, super-historical and people can receive
salvation to enter it. God’s power alone can constitute the Kingdom. He also felt that Jesus expected a
tremendous eschatological drama. He says that the message that the Kingdom of God is at hand restrains
people to decision. He equates decision with repentance. He also calls this decision ‘radical obedience’. For
Bultmann, Jesus’ ethics is an ethics of obedience.

To Walter Rauschenbusch, the exponent of the Social Gospel movement, the Kingdom of God ideal is the key
idea of the Social Gospel. For him, sin and redemption is corporate or collective. He emphasises twofold aspects
of the Kingdom of God: 1) the Kingdom is the realm of love, and 2) it is the commonwealth of labour. The reign
of God would be the reign of love. The Kingdom of God is miraculous all the way, and in the continuous
revelation of power, the righteousness, and the love of God. The establishment of a community of righteousness
in humankind is just as much a saving act of God as the salvation of an individual from his natural selfishness
and moral inability. For him, evil is manifested socially and collectively and the Gospel should be preached
collectively for a collective redemption by a transformation of structure. He thinks that theology is linked with
Gospel, and it must be related to changing situations. And also the Kingdom of God must grow in society,
morally and ethically.

b. Grace
In the teaching of Jesus, there is a difference between mere obedience to a code of law and true religion. Jesus
rejected the view that religion consisted in the faithful observance of laws, rituals and regulations. His call to
repent with which his ministry began (Mark 1:15) was a call for complete reorientation of outlook, shifting from
law to grace. The Greek word metanoeo implies a complete transformation of the nous, the controlling centre of
a person’s being. Repentance is often understood as being remorseful for the sin committed. But what Jesus
called for was more than remorsefulness. It was a shift from law orientation to grace orientation, from the karma
outlook to grace outlook.

Jesus challenged and shattered the view held in Judaism that the hope of salvation was through obedience to
the Law. The key to the good news of the kingdom of God is the grace of God, or the freedom of the love of God
unfettered by any requirement of law. God’s forgiveness and gift of salvation are unconditioned and not bound
by any code of law. Therefore, those who have entered the kingdom of God experience the freedom of the love

7
 of God and have surpassed the religion of John the Baptist who was a fine example of the best features of the
religion of the Old Testament, holding together the Law and the Prophets.

c. Love
It should be noted that the love commandment is paradoxical. If our practice of love is not spontaneous but in
obedience to a law it ceases to be genuine love. To understand this paradox in the New Testament we should
grasp that the commandment “must do” comes along with the promise of “help to do”. The practice of love in
Christian ethics is not solely dependent on human resources. We are able to love as Christ has loved us only
through the grace and power of God working in us. Therefore, more than the authority of a commandment what
we have is the gracious promise of God that he enables us to forgive and to love.

Jesus summarised all that was required by the Law and the Prophets in the two commandments of love of God
and love of the neighbour (Mark 12:29-31). It may be noted that neither of these commandments is original with
Jesus. We have them in the Old Testament, in the Pentateuch (Deut. 6:4 and Lev. 18-19). But bringing them
together is original with Jesus. In doing this Jesus categorically rejected any view of religion seeking relationship
with God without regard for relationship with fellow humans. He taught that we have to set right our relationships
with one another before we bring our offerings before God (Matt. 5: 23-24).

d. Servant hood

Unlike the kingdom of the earth, in the kingdom of God, serving the people is the emphasis, hence, it is called
the paradox of the Kingdom .“daikonia” is emphasized by Jesus (Mk 10:4f). It is contrary to world kingdom. The
‘’Servant’’ passages of Isaiah are quoted several times, and their language and ideas underlie some of the most
central statements about Jesus’ mission. The suffering and death of Jesus Christ reflects the features of the
suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53. Jesus was a servant chosen by God and sent to this World with a specific task.
He came to this world to serve. Karl Barth points out that mission are God activity. Jesus reiterated this truth
saying,’ For the Son of Man came not to be served but to Serve and to give his Life as a ransom for many (Mark
10:45). He was a model for a true Servant, for Jesus served the people by healing, feeding and liberating them.
He showed them how to obey the Authority of God and fulfil His will in Ministry. He never expected any
recognition or reward for his service. He even washed the feet of his disciples, teaching them Humility. Through
his non-violent approach to his betrayers and the soldiers who came to arrest him, Jesus showed how to give up
power and be submissive. Through his death on the cross, Jesus saved the life of humankind from eternal
punishment and made them righteous. His death on behalf of the people was done for another and expresses
his true servant hood. Thus, following the model of servant hood of Jesus the apostles learnt to prove
themselves as true servant of God
Jesus served the society and He was a servant leader of a movement. He was prophetical, since He criticized
the evils of the society. The servant Jesus acted as a social reformer. He protested against the unjust and
inhuman sabbatical laws which did prevent the humanizing activities. The servant Jesus had solidarity with the
poor, marginalized (the woman and other weaker sections) and the downtrodden. His vacation was not a
profession, but a service for others. His servant hood ministry was acted out through humility by washing the feet
of his disciples and also through his non-violent approach. Through this servant hood model of Jesus even the
apostles learnt to prove themselves as true servant of God.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

8
  Define ethics. What are the different usages of the bible in ethical reflection? Explain the relevant method
of interpretation.
 Explain in detail the major ethical themes of the Old Testament/New Testament.

C. THEOLOGY AND ETHICS

1. Relation between theology and ethics

When we talk of theology and ethics, we do not mean that we start with a theological foundation and apply it to our
reflection on ethics. It is in the context of our awareness of the realities with which we are involved that we make our
faith affirmation and ethical dimensions. It is from the perspective of our experience of the complex human reality that
we reflect on some of the traditional Biblical theological affirmations.

There are different modes of relationship between theology and ethics:

a. Dualistic view:
The basic assumption is that theology is different from ethics. They constitute their own. They are not closely
related. A traditional understanding is that theology has nothing to do with ethics. God-questions are theological
questions and not ethical questions for them. Traditionally ethics deals with more practical aspects and theology
deals with doctrinal aspects.
Ethics is very much reduced to moral behaviour. Karl Barth deals with ethics separately. Ethics is having a
different volume all the time. Classical theologians do not want to integrate the two. This is just like keeping them
in watertight compartments. They are very exclusive in themselves. They do not find much relationship between
theology and ethics. For them, ethics derives more from theology.

b. Dialectical method:
Here, ethic and theology try to enrich each other. Ethics speaks to theology and theology speaks to ethics. There
is a mutual response and responsibility. For Bonhoeffer ethics consults theology. They have strong relationship.

9
 They talk back and forth, as they have a strong relationship. They correct each other and they also provoke to
rethink. There is a dialogical relationship between theology and ethics. Though they keep a separate identity,
they are mutually responsible and try to be inclusive, try to get suggestions from the other to have meaningful
development.

c. Integration:
This is a new development in the relationship between theology and ethics. It is overcoming all existing patterns
of relationship. Not only are theology and ethics related, they are very much integrated. They integrate strongly
as if theology looks like ethics and ethics looks like theology. There is no visible difference between theological
and ethical questions. ‘God is the liberator’ is both theological and ethical view. There is no way to isolate
theology and ethics. Both deal with the issue of context. They raise the same questions. Theology and ethics
become essentially same.

2. Christological focus in ethical reflection: Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonheoffer

a. Karl Barth
He was a neo-orthodox theologian. He rejects the extreme liberal position which places revelation outside
scripture, since Christ is the only revelation for him. For him, modern theology does not much consider Jesus
Christ, i.e., what Jesus mean to people.

Karl Barth is Bible-oriented and his theology is centred around Christ as God’s self-revelation. Barth believes
only in the truth that is revealed by God in Jesus Christ and attested in the Holy Scripture. So anything which has
its origin in human is excluded as a source and basis of Barth’s theology.

In Herbert Hartwell’s opinion, Barth’s Church Dogmatics is concerned with the exposition and interpretation of a
story, the story of God’s gracious dealings with humankind in Jesus Christ from eternity. While focussing on
Jesus Christ, Barth integrates God, human, world, Holy Spirit and other subjects.

For Barth, the essence of the church is Jesus Christ as its foundation, its end and content. His theology is based
on the word. He talks about the written word (the Bible), the living word (Jesus Christ) and the proclaimed word.
His main emphasis is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. He argues in Church Dogmatics that incarnation is the
proper content of the NT, since NT talks about the reality of Jesus Christ. His Christ or Christology is all
inclusive, since Christ is supreme for him. According to Barth, the inference can be made from the reality of
Jesus Christ that God is free for us. His Christology is not isolated from human. According to Barth, Jesus’
conception is as Lord, Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, compared with ours as creatures and sinners
doomed to death. He integrates the Holy Spirit also in the Christocentric approach. He states the incarnation of
the word as God’s revelation through Jesus Christ for us, and after that with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as
God’s revelation in us. The method of Karl Barth is that a dialogue is going on among different issues, and that
dialogue is centred around Jesus Christ, God’s self revelation.

For Karl Barth, Jesus Christ himself is the incarnate grace of God. The exclusive emphasis on revelation as the
revelation of God’s grace in Jesus Christ shows the Christological character of his theology. For him, Jesus
Christ is the bridge between God and human, and God and the world.

b. Dietrich Bonheoffer
Histheology and ethics have been associated with the concept of “religious Christianity”. It has been pointed out
that Bonhoeffer belonged to the tradition of German theologians who were concerned with social ethics. He had

10
 also a strong evangelical commitment expressed in the demand for a “costly discipleship” and his concern for
living close to the presence of God and his interpretation of the imitation of Christ.

Bonhoeffer’s teaching on “religiousness” “worldy or secular Christianity” is based on his views on God, world and
goodness. “God must no longer be dragged in to explain whatever scientific investigation has failed to elucidate
– a deduction, a mere appendage to the world...Man’s (sic) religiosity makes him look to power of God in the
world; the Bible directs him to the powerless and suffering of God. God cannot be used as a stopgap. He must
be found at the centre of life.” “The world is not divided between Christ and the devil, but solely and entirely the
world of Christ...The world is always sustained, accepted, and reconciled in the reality of God”. Goodness must
no longer be divorced from the world, from life. To understand ‘good’ as certain moral ideas to be applied to ‘life’
destroys the unity; it is life itself which is good...Christian ethics enquires how the reality in Christ is taking effect;
its purpose is, participation in the reality of the world in Jesus Christ today...”

Bonhoeffer interprets Jesus as “the man (sic) for others” and regards the secular understanding of Christian life
as finding expression in living for others. He rejects the traditional division of reality into to spheres, nature and
grace, sacred and profane. For him, there is only one sphere in which the reality of the world and the reality of
God are united. In Christ the secular receives its rightful place and is emancipated to be itself. Bonhoeffer
distinguishes between the ultimate in which alone the true Christian life is found and the penultimate in which
discipleship must be exercised here and now.

3. Christian understanding of human nature: Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Lehmann

a. Reinhold Niebuhr
Niebuhr‘s theology and ethics is centred around the doctrine of man/woman, as he is concerned with social and
political responsibilities of human beings. His approach is more an integrated one. Niebuhr sees the sinfulness of
human as the basic problem. Sin is understood as the consequence of human’s inclination to usurp the
prerogatives of God, to think more highly of himself than he ought to think. When human achieves social
security, he/she become egoistic or proud. Sin is portrayed by him as pride. The sin of pride includes pride of
power, pride of intellect, moral pride and spiritual pride. The will to power is understood as the deliberate effort
on the part of the insecure individual to overcome the insecurities of nature, society and death. Human looks for
social approval, and security, but there are limitations to achieve these, but human is unable to accept these
limitations. The pride of intellect is the pride of reason. The underlying intention is for the security of an
individual. Moral pride is the pretension of mortal human, that is, highly conditioned virtue is the final
righteousness and that his/her very relative moral standards are absolute. The pride of morality, Niebuhr states,
is more evil. He argues taht in the selfless love (agape) morality of Jesus Christ, one can find the final norm of
human. The pride of all pride is spiritual pride. It is the pride of self-righteousness and self-glorification.

b. Paul Lehmann
Lehmann’sinterpretation of Christian Ethics is found in his book Ethics in a Christian Context. For him, the
fundamental problem of Christian ethics is not the good to be sought through our actions but that of analysing
the new life, the new maturity of those who have been transformed by God’s action in Jesus Christ. He speaks of
the “concrete reality of a transformed human being and a transformed humanity owing to the specific action of
God in Jesus Christ”. He regards Christian koinonia of fellowship as the foretaste of the transformed reality.

Lehmann, making a distinction between the indicative and the imperative in ethics, affirms that Christian ethics is
indicative and not imperative. The basis for decision is not ‘what I ought to do’ but ‘what I am to do.’ He regards
the Kantian absolutism as unsatisfactory for Christian ethics. However, he doesrecognises that when faced with

11
 alternate action possibilities, there is “an imperative pressure exerted by an indicative situation” and that the
‘ought’ factor cannot be ignored in ethical theory. But the primary ethical reality is the human factor, the human
indicative in every situation of ethical decision making.

Lehmann’s ethics may be described as contextual ethics, and one of the key factors of the context is the reality
of Christ and the Church, the koinonia of faith, “a new order of humanity in which and by which the Christian
lives”.

4. Theological and ethical concerns in secular sociological and political movements: Jurgen Moltmann, M.M.
Thomas

a. Jurgen Moltmann
Jurgen Moltmann is influenced by the secular philosophy of hope. For him, God is not somewhere beyond, but
he is coming and as the coming one he is present. Traditionally, eschatology is about past things, but here it is
brought to the present and past.

According to Moltmann, “A proper theology has to be constructed in the light of its future goal. Eschatology
should not its end, but its beginning”. For him, there is no ‘eschato-logy’ since logos, for Greek is the reality
which is there, now and always. There can be no logos of the future, unless the future is the continuation of
regular recurrence of the present. According to Moltmann, hope anticipates the future. They lead the existing
reality towards the promised and the hope – for transformation.

Moltmann also discusses the relationship between hope and faith. Faith binds human to Christ. Hope is the
inseperable companion of faith. Faith believes God to be true, hope awaits the time when this true shall be
manifested. Hope keeps human reconciled until the great day of fulfilment of all promises of God. This hope
makes the Christian church a constant disturbance in human society as it works towards righteousness and
freedom.

Jesus’ resurrection has an important role in Moltmann’s thinking. He says that the Christian hope is directed
towards a new creation of all things by the God of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For him, resurrection opens a
future outlook that embraces all things – renewal of life and direction. For Moltmann, God reveals himself in the
form of promise and in the history it is marked by promise.

For him, the Kingdom of God is to be anticipated in politics, not in a separate sphere called religion. According to
him, this political theology will bridge the gap between laity and clergy, and the church and the world. For
Moltmann, the happiness of human achieved through economic means can never replace political liberation and
independence as a definition of the future for which human yearn. In his view, the all-embracing vision of God
must be linked with the economic liberation of human from hunger, with political freeing of human from
oppression by other human, and with the human emancipation of human from racial humiliation. For him,
revolution is a transformation in the foundations of system – whether of economics, of politics, of morality or of
religion. He argues the Christians to side with the humanity of the oppressed in the present struggle for freedom
and justice.

Moltmann also describes the characteristics of the political hermeneutics. Political hermeneutics calls for
dialogue with socialist, democratic, humanistic and anti-racist movements. Political hermeneutics reflects the
new situation of God in the inhuman situation of human, in order to breakdown the hierarchical relationships
which deprive them of self-determination, and help to developing their humanity. Political hermeneutics of faith is
not a reduction of the theology of the cross to a political ideology, but as interpretation of it in political
discipleship. It is not just a theoretical development of tradition, but it sets out to be a hermeneutics of life in the

12
 situation of the passion of God, and therefore includes both practice and alteration of practice. For Moltmann, the
new political theology is not concerned with the dissolution of the church into left – wing or right – wing politics,
but with the Christianization of its political situation and function in terms of the freedom of Christ. Crucified God
is stateless or classless God. He is the God of the oppressed and humiliated, so he is not an unpolitical God.

b. M.M. Thomas
MM Thomas is known for Secularization and [Link] Devanandan’s time and partly no doubt as a
result of his work, especially at the New Delhi meeting of the W.C.C in 1961, this point of view has become
widely prevalent among Western theologians, particularly through the writings of Harvey Cox and A.J. van
Leeuwen. The conception of God’s work through secular history is of course not a new one, as the references to
Cyrus the Persian in Deutero-Isaiah make clear. Thomas point out how early missionaries like Alexander Duff,
and even national leaders like G.K. Gokhale, believed in the providential character of British rule in India. At the
time of national struggle comparatively few Christians threw in their lot with Gandhi, and today there are many
perhaps the majority who prefer to keep out of political involvement; many also who prefer to think of Christian
as standing up in witness against such non-Christian institutions as the secular state, and who look with
something like nostalgia to the persecutions of the early Church.

Thomas says that Church must endeavor to discern how Christ is at work in the revolution of contemporary Asia,
and must share that work with him, declaring his presence and his Lordship. In particular, Thomas feels that the
Indian National struggle was one of the ways and one of the significant ways, in which India has responded to
the Gospel.

In establishing the principle that Christians in India should join with their Hindu fellow-citizens in working for a
new and better framework for the full development of human personality, Thomas makes it clear, that this does
not involve any surrender of the distinctive Christian witness. On the contrary, Christians are called to a full
exercise of their ‘prophetic’ ministry as a contribution to the development of a truer humanism. Indian
Christianity, Thomas holds, can best make its contribution to the development of the indigenous foundations of
the new humanism in India by its insisting on its own fundamental prophetic core.

For M.M. Thomas , he envisages a three levels of koinonia (community/fellowship) in Christ: first, the koinonia
of the Eucharistic community of the church, itself a unity of diverse peoples acknowledging the person of Jesus
as the Messiah; Second , a larger koinonia of dialogue among people of different faiths inwardly renewed by
their acknowledgment of the ultimacy of the pattern of suffering servant hood as exemplified by the crucified
Jesus; third , a still larger koinonia of those involved in the power-political struggle for new societies and a world
community based on secular or religious anthropologies informed by the agape of the cross.. Christ is impacting
all these levels. It is also known as Christ Center Syncretism.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

 Discuss the different views of the relation between theology and ethics.
 Discuss the Christological focus in ethical reflectionof Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonheoffer.
 Critically evaluate the ethics of Neibhur.
 Evaluate the ethical concerns of Thomas.

13
UNIT II

ETHICAL ISSUES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIA

A. CHRISTIAN CONCERN ABOUT PERSONAL AND INTER-PERSONAL ISSUES

1. Sex, marriage and the family: including questions relating to pre-marital sex, homosexuality, family
planning, amniocentesis (sex-selection), abortion, and divorce.

The problems of sex, marriage and family are not peculiar to Christians. They are problems common to all people.
Sex, marriage and family are the most potent drives in human experience. A proper understanding of it and its
meaning and purpose in human experience is crucial for a healthy outlook in dealing with problems to sex, marriage
and the family. The Church has a responsibility to help its members to have the right perspectives for facing the
problems related to sex, marriage and family.

There are many issues related to sex which call for ethical reflection. Some of the important issues are: marriage,
pre-marital sex, homosexuality, family planning, amniocentesis (sex-selection), abortion, divorce.

a. What is Sex?
Sex is a gift from God at creation and is part of what is declared as good. It has to be held as something sacred
for the fulfilment of God’s purposes. Sex is an important expression of God’s creative power which has been
implanted in creation. It is crucial for the continuance of life through reproduction. Because of the distortions in
the practice of sex, certain wrong attitudes have developed among Christians as well as others. Traditional
assumption associates sex with something evil and bad. For instance, Augustine, a great church father, held that
sex to be evil and sex act as a venial sin. God had ordained marriage only as a concession to the sinful nature of
the humans. Church fathers like Origen and Cyprian also held such views. The Council of Trent in 1515 cursed
those who held that the married state was more blessed than the celibate.

b. What is Marriage?
According to Herman Ridderbos, marriage is instituted by God for procreation and to overcome the sexual
immorality. It should be kept sacred. Marriage is not evil (I Tim 4:4-5) and it cannot be forbidden. Marriage and
its sexual dimensions are to be acknowledged as God’s gifts. Marital love involved responsible caring for each
other, self control (not prolonged continence), and self giving (I Cor. 7:1-7; also Tim. 4:1-3). Apostle Paul did
argue for the institution of marriage. He realized the original intention of God about marriage and family. He was
describing vividly the mutual responsibility of husband and wife, and children and parents (Eph. 5:21-6:4) which
explicitly upholds the fact that Paul greatly valued marriage and the sacredness of it.

14
 i. Biblical Understanding of Sexuality and Marriage
In the Bible, sexuality and marriage is accepted as part of God’s plan and as what God has ordained for the
humans. In the book of Genesis after saying, “God created human beings in his own image; in the image of
God he created them” the author goes on to say, “male and female he created them”. It is also stated that
God ordained that the humans should be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:24 etc.).

The Gospels give the picture on the issue of sex and marriage, that sex should not be misused, and it
should not be misused even in marriage (Matt. 19:3-12; Mark 7:20-23; 10:6-7; Lk 16:18 etc.). In the fourth
gospel, the context of the wedding at Cana reveals that Jesus had high esteem for marriage (Jn. 2).
According to some scholars, Jesus held marriage in high esteem and this is evident from the fact that he
blessed a marriage at Cana with his presence and support (cf Jn. 2:1-11). Other important passages that
deals with sexuality and marriage includes Jn. 4; 8 etc.

In Pauls’ letters, in some places, we find the apostle giving preference to the unmarried state (I Cor. 7:8; 23-
24; 32-34). He recommends celibacy only as a way of being dedicated to be “concerned with the Lord’s
business”. Paul speaks of men and women being made for each other (Eph. 5:22-23; Col. 3:18-19). He also
described the husband-wife relationship as analogical to or symbolic of the relationship between Christ and
the Church.

c. Homosexuality
Homosexuality is the practise of seeking satisfaction with members of the same sex. Traditionally, the
heterosexual practise, namely sexual relations with members of the opposite sex has been regarded as the
normal one. Ethically also, it has been traditionally assumed in all cultures that sex was meant primarily for
procreation and therefore homosexual (gay, lesbian) relations are unnatural. Homosexuals have been regarded
as perverts or even as sinners by some Christians.

In the Bible, certain passages condemned homosexuality as a sinful practise. For instance, Paul speaks of the
homosexual practise of both men and women as “unnatural” and “perversion”, given to “shameful passions”, the
result of the fallen condition (Rom. 1:25-27). Because of such teaching in the Bible the attitude of the Christian
churches has been one of condemnation of homosexuality as sinful.

One of the reasons for regarding homosexuality as unnatural is the assumption that the main objective of sex is
procreation. Some absolutists would regard procreation as the only basis for sexual relations. But even apart
from the objective of procreation, sex provides an important basis of love relationship between partners.
Therefore, it is difficult to condemn all homosexual partnership as immoral and sinful.

During the last several decades, the homosexuals have come out openly to claim equality of rights with the
heterosexuals. They have organized themselves in “gay” societies or communities. In some countries,
particularly USA, some members of the ordained ministry have also openly acknowledged themselves to be
homosexuals. There are many homosexual couples who have committed themselves to be “married” for lifelong
partnership.

There is also growing awareness that some people have in-born homosexual tendencies and are incapable of
heterosexual relations. There has been growing sympathy towards the agitation of the homosexuals for their
“gay rights”.

If a person has in-born homosexual tendencies and homosexuality is the only meaningful basis of sexual
relationship it is not right to condemn the person. If, however, homosexuality is resorted to only for the
satisfaction of sensual passions it cannot be given ethical approval. The discovery of the high risk of AIDS

15
 among the homosexuals has further complicated the problem. Instead of adopting judegmentary attitude towards
homosexuals we need sympathetic understanding of the persons who are known to be homosexuals.

d. Family Planning
The traditional belief among many Christians has been that children are the gift of God and that it is a blessing of
God to have many children (ps. 127:3-5). Based on such faith, many hold that humans should not interfere with
the size of families. But such traditional faith cannot be absolutized and taken as the basis for determining our
policy regarding family planning. It should be borne in mind that the birth of a child cannot always be attributed to
the will of God. We know that pregnancies do take place through rape or irresponsible sexual acts.

Family planning is not just a means for population control. The overall health and happiness of a family depends
on careful planning for the size of a family. Discipline in sex life, planning for the mother’s health, adequate
planning for the well-being of each child, these are the components of family planning. In this sense, family
planning is also called planned parenthood. The father and the mother have the responsibility of planning their
life together, prayerfully and decide on the manner in which they build their family and provide for themselves
and their children. Frequent child-bearing has adverse effects on the mother’s health and therefore responsible
planning of the spacing of children is necessary. Families also have economic limitations on the number of
children they can support with the basic requirements of food, housing, clothing, education, health care and
other basic necessities of life. The parents also need to be aware of their spiritual and emotional limitations in
taking care of the nurturing of the children.

In India, the concern/goal for family planning is not to have more than two children. Contraceptives, sterilization
and abortion etc. are some of the frequently used methods of family planning. Whatever methods are employed,
the following principles have to be remembered for the practice of family planning:
i. Every citizen has to cooperate responsibly in the efforts to limit population growth.
ii. Bearing in mind the goals of society and health of the family, limiting the size of a family is a
legitimate objective.
iii. Each family has the responsibility of planning the size of the family, taking into consideration all the
factors, the health of the mother and all the resources needed to take care of the full development
of the children.
iv. In planning for the family, high priority is to be given for the personality development of the children,
not just their physical growth but also their education, their intellectual, moral and spiritual
formation.

e. Abortion
While in some countries abortion is freely practised other countries regard it as illegal. In India we have laws
relating to medical termination of pregnancy. It is important to have appropriate laws for the monitoring and
controlling of abortions. Very often the illegal practise of abortion causes serious health risks to the mother.
According to medical opinion, abortion is safe only within the first three months of pregnancy. Those who
practise illegal abortion do not always respect this limitation. There are situations where abortion is regarded as
legitimate. One, is where the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest. Another, is when the continuation of the
pregnancy will seriously endanger the physical or mental health of the mother. There may also be situations
where the life of the mother is in danger. Thirdly, there are cases where abortion is recommended because of
the risk of the baby being born with physical or mental deformities due to some cause. Some churches,
particularly the Roman Catholic church, are opposed to abortion under any circumstance. In some countries
there are also organized movements, such as the Pro-Life Movement in USA which oppose any legislation

16
 permitting abortion. While recognizing the legitimacy of abortion in certain situations it is equally important to be
guided by firm commitment to sacredness of life and protection of the right to human dignity.

Another question raised, is whether it is proper to use abortion as method for family planning. It should be clearly
understood that abortion is killing of life. The Christian faith about the sacredness of life is firmly against all forms
of taking life at any stage. Christian ethics cannot support abortion as a method for family planning. It is the
responsibility of the Church to build public opinion to resist any move to justify abortion as a means to family
planning.

f. Divorce
Divorce is one of the most serious challenges to the sanctity of marriage. Both in the Christian faith and also in
Hinduism, marriage is a sacrament with commitment for a life-long relationship. In Islam, it is only a contract
which can be terminated by the triple pronouncement of talaq. In spite of the vows for life-long commitment,
divorces take place and we have to ask what the position of Christian Ethics is.

Some churches, particularly the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches hold that in so far as marriage is a
sacrament binding for life, divorce is not permitted. Even if divorce is obtained through secular courts it will not
be recognized by the churches concerned. Several main line churches, however, while adhering to the binding
character of the marriage vows and faithfulness to marriage as a sacrament, take a more realistic view and
permit divorce in situations where the marriage has irreparably broken. Divorce is evil, but in certain
circumstances, it is indispensable because refusal to grant divorce will involve parties concerned in greater evil.

In the Old Testament, a man is permitted to divorce the wife if “he finds something offensive in her” (Deut. 24:1-
4). According to Malachi 2:13-16, divorce is hateful to God. Divorce is certainly opposed to the mind of Christ.
His teaching on divorce is found in Mark 10:1-12 and Matt.19:3-12. Both passages refer to the same context. In
Mark, Jesus categorically prohibits divorce. In Matthew also divorce is forbidden but permitted on the ground of
adultery. It should be noted that Jesus was not laying down specific laws relating to marriage and divorce. He
was drawing attention to the divine purpose in marriage and the binding character of the marriage bond,
according to which divorce is contrary to God’s purpose. It is the responsibility of the Church to uphold this
principle. At the same time, it is also the responsibility of the Church to recognize the realities of human
experience and to take decisions which will mediate the love of God to the people involved in the contradictions
of broken marriage (Mark 10:9).
There are certainly cases where the deep faith of a person helps him/her to experience the abounding grace of
God to overcome the obstacles, patiently bear the difficulties and prevent the breaking up of the marriage bond.
One of the objectives of pastoral care and counselling should be for saving the marriages. But it would be
unrealistic to absolutise such an objective for all cases. There are cases where the happiness of all concerned
would be through recognition of separation or divorce.

2. Euthanasia (mercy-killing)

According to J. Russell Chandran, Euthanasia means a humane and merciful way of terminating the life of a person
in the interests of the person as well as others. Now being practised in many countries, the issue of
euthanasia/mercy killing raises important ethical questions. Till recently, whatever be the circumstances, mercy killing
was regarded as murder and was condemned as illegal and murder in most countries. Well known theologians like
Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth were opposed to it. In his book Ethics Bonhoeffer, commenting on human life and
death has said that God alone is the author and finisher of life and that in the sight of God there is no life that is not
worth living. Barth also said “no” to the question whether society has the right to declare certain sick people as unfit
to live. But certain situational realities have challenged communities and persons to rethink the ethics of euthanasia.

17
There are patients terminally ill, who according to considered medical opinion, have no possibility of recovering. They
have become a burden to the family and to society. They have virtually become a vegetable and are kept alive on
expensive life-supporting drugs. These patients also, very often, occupy hospital beds badly needed for other more
hopeful patients, raising the question of priority of claim for hospital care. There are also terminally-ill patients
suffering from excruciating pain and would like to be relived by death. The choice is also made difficult by cases of
recovery by patients after long periods of comatose condition considered as hopeless. The question of who should
take the decision regarding mercy killing is also very problematic.

Robin Gill in his book on Christian Ethics has listed six types of euthanasia based on how the eventual death of a
patient is caused:

a. Direct treatment by doctor of willing patient

b. Direct treatment by doctor of non-willing patient
c. Indirect effects of treatment by doctor of willing patient
d. Indirect effects of treatment by doctor of non-willing patient
e. Non-treatment by doctor of willing patient
f. Non-treatment by doctor of non-willing patient

He has rightly observed that if direct or even indirect treatment were to be applied to the unwilling (rather than a
willing) patient this might constitute murder rather than euthanasia. He has also drawn attention to the difficulties in
determining willingness of comatose patient who has previously favoured euthanasia. The ambiguities of the problem
prevents any absolute position for or against euthanasia. Along with concern for the sanctity of life the commitment to
love compels us also to fight, in fellowship with our Lord and guided by the Holy Spirit, for the removal of pain and
suffering beyond the capacity of humans to bear.

3. HIV/AIDS

The Humane Immuno Deficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) are spreading all
over the world with great speed. It is a global epidemic. Each year 16,000 people are infected by AIDS. In 2001,
around 33.6 million were AIDS affected. In India, there are around 30.86 lakhs infected by HIV. It is increasing in
greater number in Maharashtra, Manipur and Tamilnadu especially. 60 percent of sex workers in Mumbai are
affected by AIDS.

AIDS is mainly a sexually transmitted disease (STD). It is transmitted by sex or through blood transfusion from the
infected ones. Newborn babies are infected from the AIDS affected mother. The AIDS is spreading fast among
intravenous drug users in Manipur and Nagaland. In India, it is found that 83 percent of the AIDS infection is through
sexual contact. The illicit sex and sexual relations with commercial sex workers (CSW) has been the main cause of
wide-spread AIDS.

The United Nations is working hard to prevent the spread of AIDS. It provides care and support for those infected and
affected by the disease. The National Aids Control programme (NACO) is directed to control the AIDS. They are
involved in awareness activities. Making the people aware the need for the use of condoms or contraceptives which
can reduce the spread of AIDS. They also regulate the blood banks to strictly monitor blood donors. They are also
involved in counselling.

AIDS is a serious epidemic which does not have any cure. The only alternative is to prevent AIDS. Sex should be
limited to the marital partners, as when this rule is violated there is every possibility of men and women becoming the
carriers of AIDS. So much social stigma is attached to AIDS that the AIDS patients are always looked down upon by
the society.

18
AIDS patients are also like any other patients who need our care and love. They are physically and psychologically
affected. They are always under the stress and strain because of shame, ill health and their terminal condition. AIDS
leads to sure death as there is no medicine to cure it. The families and society have to recognize their dignity and
should support them. Though the AIDS patient may be neglected, he/she has to be loved. The love to the sick which
was shown by Jesus is a supreme example for the Church to follow with regard to the AIDS patients also. The
Church can also be involved in awareness activities to reduce the spread of AIDS.

B. CHRISTIAN CONCERN AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN INDIAN CHURCH AND SOCIETY

1. Biblical and theological insights into equality of women and men

Initially in the Bible, there was full equality between man and woman as they came from the Creator’s hands. They
were equal, complementary, and compatible partners created in the image of God, given the same privilege of
“subduing” the earth, and the same responsibility to people the earth with God-loving, God-worshiping, and Godlike
children.

Genesis 1 appears to indicate equality between man and woman in the following ways: (1) “man” being created as
“male and female,” (2) their creation “in the image of God,” (3) their sharing in equal manner in the divine “blessing,”
(4) their common power to “subdue” the earth, (5) their mutual assignment to “rule” over the animals, and (6) their
common vocation to be God’s vice-regents on earth (Gen 1:26-21).

The more extensive story of the creation of man and woman in Gen 2 does not stand in tension or opposition to this
picture, but corroborates the compressed statements of Gen 1, complementing them with additional details. That
woman is created to be man’s “helper”. This term “helper” expresses both a beneficial and a harmonious relationship
between man and woman. Only woman is a suitable partner alongside and corresponding to man; she is his equal
companion (2:18, 20). As God is man’s superior helper and animals are man’s interior helpers, so woman is man’s
equal helper, one that fits him. Woman owes her creation as solely to God as does man who, although created first,
is neither consulted nor participates in her creation. Her creation from Adam’s rib indicates the inseparable unity and
fellowship of life between male and female as well as her status as equal with man (2:21). The jubilant outcry, “This
at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (2:23a, RSV), expresses man’s recognition that finally there is a
fitting companion equal to him. The fact of Adam’s creation before Eve’s does not imply any superiority on his part.

With the fall of man and the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) the complete and total harmony between God and
man, man and man/woman, and man and world is disrupted. The particular term chosen by the inspired writer to
express the idea of the divine declaration that man shall “rule” over his wife (3:16) indicates that she is not reduced to
a slave or an animal to be “ruled” as animals are (1:26, 28). The context of Gen 3:16 amply indicates that the sphere
of woman’s submission is restricted to the marriage relationship. To maintain a harmonious union in marriage during
the era of sin, God designed that while husband and wife should remain equal, he should “rule” over her or be the
head of a relationship of equals as the Father is the head of Christ in the relationship of the equality of a triune God
(1 Cor. 11:3). The husband’s rulership is modeled after the self-giving love of Christ for the church (Eph. 5:25, 28),
which militates against any usurpation of powers and claims of authority over woman (Gen 3:20).

Unfortunately, after the first three chapters of Genesis, man’s adulteration and abuse of his powers debased
womanhood. This abuse spread far outside the marriage relationship to include all women, and to reduce their
position in some societies to little more than goods and chattels– property owned by the man as he owned a house,
land, animals, and slaves. This is reflected in social, religious, and legal affairs in the Pentateuch and the rest of the
Bible. Genealogies were given by the father’s line with women rarely mentioned (Num. 26:46, 59; etc.). The father
had absolute authority over children, married sons living with him, his wife (wives), and the whole household. This
power extended even over life and death in some cases (Gen 38:24).

19
The implications of these observations are of immense significance for the task of the proclamation of the gospel. If
the plan of salvation and the message of the gospel are concerned with the reproduction of the image of God in
human under the guidance of the Spirit of truth; and if Christ in His life and death has achieved recovery from the ruin
wrought through sin, it is now the responsibility of the church to bring about the reproduction of the image of God in
human, to restore harmony between God and human, and establish equality and unity in the human family where
there is now inequality between men and women in all spheres of life and activity.

2. Current status of women in India: in areas such as health, education, employment opportunities, wage
policies, work participation. The problem of sexual harassment of women.

Women’s empowerment in India is heavily dependent on many different variables that includes including health,
education, economic opportunities, gender-based work participation, and political participation.

Women from lower castes (the scheduled castes, other backward castes, and tribal communities) are often unable to
access health and educational services, lack decision-making power, and face higher levels of violence. Among
women of lower caste and class, some level of education has shown to have a positive impact on women’s
empowerment indicators.

Access to education for girls in some of the northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Punjab does not only rely on
proximity of schools. Access to education is part of a larger structural concern, including the practice of son
preference, which creates inherent discriminatory practices. Education initiatives therefore cannot rely solely on
building educational infrastructure, but also need to address some of the root causes of discrimination against
women and girls which affect the decisions made by parents.

The Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum in 2009 ranked India 114th out of 134 countries for
inequality between men and women in the economy, politics, health, and education. On equal economic
opportunities and women’s participation in the labour force, India ranked 127th and 122nd respectively. The number
of women in the workforce varies greatly from state to state: 21% in Delhi; 23% in Punjab; 65% in Manipur; 71%
Chhattisgarh; 76% in Arunachal Pradesh. The diversity of women’s economic opportunities between states is due to
the cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity of each state. Northern states like Delhi and Punjab lag far behind on
gender equality measures, including the alarming sex ratio between men and women (due to son preference and
sex-selective abortion), low female literacy levels, and high rates of gender-based violence.

Abuse and violence towards women are predominantly perpetrated within the household, and marital violence is
among the most accepted by both men and women. Wife beating, slapping, rape, dowry related deaths, feudal
violence towards tribal and lower caste women, trafficking, sexual abuse, and street violence permeate the Indian
social fabric, and create one of the most serious obstacles in achieving women’s empowerment. Some recent
statistics on women include:

i. India ranks 18th among the highest maternal mortality rates in the world with 540 deaths for every
100,000 births.
ii. Only 48% of adult Indian women are literate.
iii. Among rural women, 36.1% have experienced physical violence in their adult lives.
iv. 66% of women who have experienced physical violence in their lifetimes are divorced, widowed, or
deserted.
v. Lower caste and tribal women are among those who experience the highest levels of physical violence.
vi. 85.3% of women reporting violence claimed that their current husbands were the perpetrators.
vii. According to the most recent Demographic and Health Survey analysis, only 43% of currently married
women (between ages 15-49) are employed as compared to 99% of men.

20
3. Church and position and role of women within the Church

There are two basic Biblical truths relating to men and women that must be affirmed and upheld in the life of the
church. The first is their equality as bearers of God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and as fellow Christians (Galatians 3:28;8
1 Peter 3:7). The second is the leadership role to which men are called by God in the church so that by apostolic
injunction, based on God’s creative action, women are not allowed “to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1
Timothy 2:12).

The first truth has as its corollary that women are to use their gifts in every way that Christians in general are to do,
except for those areas explicitly prohibited by Scripture.

This is seen in Paul’s treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only from speaking in
church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) where congregational “teaching” is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the
items listed in verse correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only the first item, “a psalm,”
not dealt with in these verses] and in particular notice that “teaching” [nasb] in verse 26 is the one-word description
for the “speaking” Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34 and 35). These women are recognized as
properly participating in praying and prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign of
their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

Some very practical deductions and applications can be drawn from these principles.

If all other members of the church participate in voting at congregational meetings, then of course women members
equally share that right. If all other worshipers are participating in the worship by sharing and praying, then women
also should participate equally. The church of Christ, its men and women, must be equally concerned to uphold both
these aspects of inclusion and any necessary exclusion in fidelity to God’s Word.

One must not draw the false conclusion that the Scriptures are opposed to women teaching or exercising any kind of
leadership. Far from it, women are encouraged by the Apostle Paul to teach other women and to make full use of
their gifts in that realm (Titus 2:3-5). Just as Paul directs how tongue speakers and prophets may use their gifts in
accordance with God’s order, so he encourages women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5).

Jesus used many illustrations from the life experiences of women. He obviously did not regard them as second-rate
human beings but in every respect as equal to men. When questioned regarding divorce, He set forth God’s ideal of
marriage as an inviolable lifelong union of a man and a woman. He plainly condemned the trivial procedure by which
men in His day divorced their wives. Marriage called for fidelity on the part of both partners, and He recognized no
double standard of sexual morality. Jesus’ own relation with women, and His treatment of them as equals, was
revolutionary in His time. He freely associated with, and presented His message to, both men and women. Women
were treated in every sense as on the same level with men. He treated His own mother with respect and deference,
and was concerned about providing for her future even as He hung on the cross. He departed from Jewish
conventions and rules of propriety by conversing with women and teaching them publicly and privately. Many of His
miracles were performed on behalf of women. More than once He risked ceremonial defilement to minister to them.
Among His special friends were such women as Martha and Mary of Bethany. He graciously accepted Mary’s
affectionate act of anointing, and described it as a beautiful expression of love. Although He did not designate women
as apostles, He did accept a group of Galilean women as followers, permitting them to accompany Him in His
mission and accepting their financial support. While Jesus accepted the devotion and love of women, His association
with them was always on a high spiritual plane. Thus by His style of life, in opposition to the age in which He lived,
and by His open acceptance of women and His respect for their personalities, Jesus definitely championed women’s
right to honor and dignity.

21
C. CHRISTIAN CONCERN ABOUT POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT

1. Biblical and theological insights

Poverty is defined as ‘the inability to attain a minimal standard of living.’ Robert Mc Namara, the former World Bank
Chief regards poverty “as a condition of life so characterised by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease squalid, surrounding,
high and infant mortality and low life expectancy, as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency.”
Rajeshwar Mishra exposits that “poverty can be defined as a social phenomenon, in which a sect of society is unable
to fulfil even its own basic necessities of life. When a substantial segment of society is deprived of the minimum level
of living and continues at a bare subsistence level, society is plagued by mass poverty.”

Liberation theology springs from some very practical concerns and some hard questions: how can we talk about God
as love to people who are caught up in poverty and oppression? How can we believe in a just God in a situation
where people are dying unjustly? And what does the Bible have to say to poor and marginalised people?

One of the major contributions of Liberation theology has been to encourage poor communities to read the Bible from
their own perspectives. For poor woman to understand Mary, the mother of Jesus, not as a remote figure but as
someone sharing their own situation is immensely liberating – setting them free, in a sense, to read and understand
the biblical story in their own way and to apply its meaning to themselves. Different contexts therefore produce
different insights.

A Christian response to the suffering of the world’s poorest people, whether as churches or as individuals, has to
meet some basic criteria: it must be compassionate, proportionate and effective. Think of Jesus miraculously feeding
the crowds who had gathered to listen to him. It all began because he had compassion on them after three days with
nothing to eat (Mark 8:2). His response was in keeping with the size of the problem: he provided food for all of them.
And it was effective – so much so that there were 12 baskets of food left over. We see the same pattern in his
healing miracles: they begin with Jesus’ compassion and there are no half measures in how he responds to people’s
needs. Furthermore, and importantly, Jesus’ response was prophetic. The giving of food after three days points to the
cross and resurrection: a promise of new life to come.

Through St. Paul’s writings we see that God is not to be detached from political and social structures, and in working
for social justice today, we cannot look away from them. Not to seek to change the structures that keep poor people
in poverty – believing that a permanent division between rich and poor is God’s will – is not a Christian option.

2. Migration and Displacement of population

Estimating the number of Internal Displacement Peoples (IDPs) in India is problematic. Regular monitoring is not
possible in such a huge country which lacks a central authority responsible for coordinating data from central and
state governments. The nature, frequency and extent of the causes of internal displacement in India are so varying
that it would be a herculean task to monitor and record them. The latest World Refugee Survey put the total number
of IDPs in India as 507,000; the Indian Social Institute in Delhi and the Global IDP Project place it at 21.3 million.

In India, there are four broad categories of displacement:

a. Political causes, including secessionist movements: Example – Since independence, north-east India has
witnessed two major armed conflicts: the Naga movement primarily led by the National Socialist Council of
Nagaland, and the Assam Students Union and now largely taken over by the extremist United Liberation Front of
Assam. The violence and retaliatory responses from the government and other forces opposed to the
secessionists continue to generate a steady flow of displaced people.

22
b. Identity-based autonomy movements: Identity-based autonomy movements have also led to violence and
displacement. This has happened in Punjab and more recently in the Bodo Autonomous Council area of western
Assam. Cleansing of non-Bodo communities by the Bodos, through plunder, arson, massacre and persecution,
has forced a large number of non-Bodos to flee. They now live in camps.

c. Localized violence: Internal displacement has also arisen from caste disputes (as in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh),
religious fundamentalism (as in urban riots in Bombay, Coimbatore, Bhagalpur and Aligarh) and aggressive
denial of residency to non-indigenous groups by supporters of the ‘son-of-the-soil policy’ (as in Meghalaya by the
Khasi students and in Arunachal Pradesh against the Chakmas).
d. Environmental and development-induced displacement: In order to achieve rapid economic growth, India
has invested in industrial projects, dams, roads, mines, power plants and new cities which have been made
possible only through massive acquisition of land and subsequent displacement of people. According to the
figures provided by the Indian Social Institute, the 21.3 million development induced IDPs include those
displaced by dams (16.4 million), mines (2.55 million), industrial development (1.25 million) and wild life
sanctuaries and national parks (0.6 million).

D. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND POLITICS

1. Biblical and theological insights

Different types of political system exist in this world. Democracy is one of the systems, and there is also communism
or totalitarian political systems. The attitude of politics is a very significant issue. Should the Church and Christians be
involved in politics? What should be the response to politics? These are the crucial questions to be addressed.
Traditionally, Christians talks about two spheres or realms – spiritual and temporal. Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues that
there is no secular and scared as Christ is the Lord of the universe. He was for the church responding to political
issues. He and the confessing church challenged the evils of Nazi regime spearheaded by Adolf Hitler. He gave up
his life for that political cause, as a true and faithful servant of Jesus.

In relation to church and politics, there are different views. The dualistic view is promoted by Augustine. He talked
about the ‘city of God’ and ‘earthly city’. City of God, is according to him, whose members are bound by their
common love for God and efforts to build community. The there is earthly city whose members are distinguished by
self-interest, pride and love of power. The city of God is compared to the church and earthly city is compared to
political empires. Augustine argues that the earthly city looks for the earthly welfare and peace, but city of God looks
for the eternal and heavenly peace.

In the biblical view, getting involved in politics in the fair sense is not bad. There are many biblical characters holding
political leadership. Moses, Joseph, Deborah, David and Daniel were the best examples. They were governing or
administering in the civil context. They were ruling the society as women and men of God. The prophets were
understood as the politicians of God as they looked for a structural transformation to institute an egalitarian society.
Their politic was based on a particular vision to which they were committed. Jesus had its own politics as he formed a
community challenging the existing political systems. He had a value system and a policy of his own as against the

23
unjust political system of the day. He argued for the rights of the poor and marginalised. He was not away from the
society and the political system, but he had a politics of his own.

2. Fundamentalism

The term ‘fundamentalism’ originated at the beginning of the 20 th century in the United States of America. It is an
American coinage that initially refers to a group of early twentieth-century Protestant activists who organized against
Darwinian evolution and who championed the literal reading of the Bible. However, today, in the present journalistic
usage, the word fundamentalism is used as a negative label for groups and organizations, which use religion for
political gains. Fundamentalism is an on-going movement in religions, which by nature are: reactionary, exclusivistic,
separatistic, intolerant, oppositional, politically motivated, claiming to be custodians of truth, claiming to be agents of
a true community, claiming to be working for the glorious future which is based on the golden past, believing the
fundamentals which are supposed to be the corner stone of their organization, claiming to be struggling for
eradicating evils from the society through radical changes for which often militancy is accepted as a means and
claiming themselves as the agents of sacred power. Fundamentalism is not only religious, but it may be cultural,
ethnic and political as well. It generally contributes to communal disharmony.

The original concern of religious fundamentalism was to emphasize the fundamentals or the essence of religious
faith. However, in India, in due course, religious fundamentalism has become fanatic and divisive by absolutizing
particular forms of religious life, rituals, etc., based on partial apprehensions and on one-sided interpretations of truth.
In India, Religious fundamentalism is linked with politics, used as a way of establishing and legitimizing a political
ideology, and more often used for the manipulation of society or for the domination of a section by another. Religious
symbolism and institution are used to perpetuate injustice and domination.

The appeal to ethnic Hindu nationalism is considered to be the beginning of the modern Hindu Fundamentalism. The
overwhelming logic was the domination of “majority” Hindus over the “minority” Muslims and Christians. Hindu
Fundamentalism is on the upsurge as a result of the Babri Masjid – Ram Janambhumi dispute (1992) and the
proposed temple at Ayodhya had become a symbol of communal mobilization. In recent years, Hindu
Fundamentalism has taken on definite political overtones. Hindu Fundamentalism can best be summarized as
nationalistic in its major identifications.

Christian approach to fundamentalism ought to be holistic or multidimensional. Following are some of the elements
that must be present in a Christian response to fundamentalism.

a. Need to Promote Inclusive Theology and to Relativise Exclusive Claims:

In a religiously pluralistic society, humans have to acquire a new dimension of self-awareness that we are all
inter-related and inter-connected in God’s creation and no one can discover one’s identity except as existing in a
network of relationships and never in isolation. However, most religions tend to make exclusive claims of the
Divine Truth. Exclusiveness weakens God’s outreach to all humanity in pluriform. It is an act of erecting barriers
against future religious prospects and possibilities. It is closing the door of hope for mutual criticism, mutual
secundation and mutual enrichment. One need to examine the seeds of exclusiveness that lie imbedded in all
forms of fundamentalism. An exclusive self-understanding of a religious community cannot tolerate religious
freedom, nor engage in genuine inter-religious dialogue. The need of the hour is a radical religious tolerance.
Therefore, all exclusive self understanding of a community has to pave way to Universalist praxis.

b. Evangelization-Methodology to be Reconsidered:In the context of growing fundamentalism, Christians need

to understand evangelization as faith, or sharing of one’s God-experience and the Good-News with other
religious members, and not sitting in judgment on other religions. Evangelization is not a means for converting
people from one community to another but working for total transformation of humankind and the world.

24
 Proclamation of the Good-News has to take a dialogical form rather than preaching by verbalism. In various
evangelical activities, Christians must creatively proclaim what Jesus proclaimed, viz, that God is the Father of
all humankind. It is a very inclusive message. In a similar vein we need to foster all inclusive theologies and
liturgical and para-liturgical celebrations.

c. A Genuine Receptiveness towards Other Faiths:The Christian community can play a positive role in building
a secular state in India and promoting harmony among people. There is an urgent need to overcome the
inherited dualistic outlook of dividing the reality into sacred and profane. We must also promote in the right sense
secular spiritualities and secular values, such as patriotism, concern for peace, and economic, social and cultural
progress of a society. A special way through which the Church can support the national goal of secularism is by
means of providing a spiritual content to secularism from within its own Christian spirituality as well as from other
Indian spiritualities. This demands the Church to be vulnerable in its faith-perception and praxis and to open up
itself and be receptive to other faiths. True religion must lead all to creative involvement and co-operation in
solving the national problems. The aim of Christian involvement in social, educational and political spheres must
be total liberation of a society.

E. CHRISTIAN CONCERN FOR PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL ORDER

Ronald H. Bainton in his book, Christian Attitudes Towards War and Peace says that peace in Hebrew denotes more
than the absence of war. Shalom signify well-being and was almost synonymous with prosperity. Peace meant
security. The Greek word eirene is derived from the root word meaning “linkage”. Peace is thus a state of order and
coherence. In the Old Testament, peace is understood as the opposite of war, or linked with the absence of war
(Judges 11:13; I Kings 2:5; Prov. 16:17).

Peace is political. It cannot be achieved outside the community for it is never ever just an individual’s experience.

1. Christianity and Pacifism

The term “Pacifism” is derived from the Latin root word “pax,” meaning “peace”and literally means ‘peace making’.
From this, one can define it as love of peace, or devotion to peace. Very often the word implies the advocacy of non-
violent instead of violent means in movements for social change. In its broadest sense, Christian pacifism may be
defined as the theological and ethical position that any form of violence is incompatible with the Christian faith.
Christian pacifists almost invariably ground their position primarily in the life and message of Jesus who taught and
practiced pacifism. Those who advocates pacifism holds that “human’s highest and loftiest ideal is peace…consisting
of simple tranquility as such, not a tranquility with order.”

Early Church fathers Tertullian (155-240 AD)and Origen (185-254 AD) were against Christians participating in military
service. J. H. Yoder, a pacifist thinker remains skeptical of the just war. He argued that for the sake of the world,
Christians need to demonstrate the credibility of our ethic, to put to test, and to be honest about where it leads us.

a. Two variations or issues within pacifism are worth noting briefly:

i. Some pacifist Christians have seen no legitimate role for force or violence by states; others have seen a
carefully constrained role for the state related to coercion and violence but have simply said that the
Christian cannot participate due to his/her identity as a Christ-follower.

25
 ii. Some pacifists have interpreted Jesus as requiring non-resistance to evil. But others, looking at Jesus’
whole life, including the Cross itself, view him as offering nonviolent resistance to evil. He did battle, he
waged war against evil, one might say, but he did not resort to evil to wage war against evil. “Do not be
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12:21).
b. The Dilemma of Pacifism:
There are considerable amount of dilemma in discussion of Christian pacifism. The issue here is the justification
for the use of force by Christians. Today, experience of total warfare and the threat of atomic annihilation had
made it uncertain whether the use of armed force could still be morally justified even as a last resort. This
undermined the doctrine of a just war. Is there such a thing as a “just” war or a just revolution? This leads us
back to the question of the right to resist, i.e., whether it is permissible to remove a dictator/ unjust situations by
force. All these questions have given the debate on pacifism and violence/force a new dimension.

Pacifists insist that to resort to warfare, even for a moral end, is to adopt a means inconsistent with the
Christian’s calling. Hauerwas writes in “The Peaceable Kingdom” that violence is rarely used only for justice.
Violence too often “distort the character of our alternatives”, it is not tested solely for justice, but he argues that “it
is a matter of the power of some over others”. Hauerwas does not fully accept the idea of justified violence,
although he does concede that he can sympathise with its position as Christian, but when violence is justified in
principle, people maybe far too quick to use violence.

The Bible calls us to “Defend the poor and fatherless/motherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver
the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:3-4). God commanded the Israelites to
go to war, but Jesus said we should “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). It is true that Christians are to turn the
other cheek and love our enemy, but we are also told to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise if there is serious injury (Ex. 21:23-25).
Further, specific biblical passages give credence to the possibility of just use of force against evil. For instance,
Abraham rescued Lot by means of military force (Gen 14). Jesus even drives out moneychangers with a whip of
cords (Jn 2:15). So while all war involves sin, the total moral proscription of all war and use of force appears to
overstep the biblical witness. On the other hand, pacifists hold on to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt.5:3-12) and
the Decalogue (Ex. 20:2-17) to justify their standpoint on not resorting to violence. Apparently it seems that we
have contradictions in the Bible with regard to pacifism and the use of force.

2. Just War Theory (JWT)1:

JWT first appearing in the thought of Augustine, and receiving systematic treatment later, the most consistent
formulation resting in Thomas Aquinas’, and reaching another watershed at the dawn of the modern age with,
notably, the theologically trained jurist Hugo Grotius, holds the view that some wars under specific circumstances is
justifiable as less evil than the execution of some threat which it wards off or the continuation of some system which it
changes, and that justifiable wars merit full Christian support and participation. For a given situation, JWT asks
whether choosing to go to war was or is the correct moral choice. It also looks at conduct during war, holding up each
action taken during a war to moral critique.
1
The criteria for JWT vary with different authors. A basic summary would include the following: Jus ad Bellum
(just entry into war) i) Just cause: to protect innocent life, secure basic human rights, restore secure peace; ii)
Competent authority: war must be declared/waged by legitimate governmental authority; iii) Comparative justice:
our cause must be just, and it must be worth killing for; iv)Right intention: pursuit of peace and reconciliation, not
vengeance, territory, or pride; v)Probability of success: Victory must be possible-if not, is it worth the bloodshed?
vi) Proportionality: the costs incurred must be proportionate to the good [Link] resort: all peaceful
alternatives must have been exhausted.
Jus in bello (just conduct of war)i) Proportionality: continuing evaluation of costs and good of war. ii)
Noncombatant immunity/discrimination: civilian populations may not be intentionally targeted or harmed; relates to
treatment of prisoners of war as well.

26
 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian who was put to death for his involvement in the July 20, 1944 plot to assassinate
Hitler, justified tyrannicide by some of the criteria of JWT. His “operative guidelines” for JWT included: clear evidence
of serious misrule; respect for the scale of political responsibility and authority (those lower in or outside the political
hierarchy should act only after others have failed); reasonable assurance of successful execution; tyrannicide as a
last resort; minimal necessary force.

For Stanley Haeurwas, violence can be justified to certain people under Christian beliefs, seeing as the majority of
‘political orders’ are brought about through violence, it would then not be without “ethical justification”, as the states
hegemony of violence is ‘in principle’ rooted in the principles of JWT: “The state use violence to restrain those who
have no respect for the lives and rights of other people in that society”. From this stance, he also states, as an
example of Christian working out the ‘discipleship required of Jesus’, the JWT is an ‘imaginative’ attempt to carry out
the gospel ideals of forgiveness and peace, but to also include the Christian’s increase in responsibility as a much
larger society than before, and possibly a mistake.

The key Scripture passage supporting JWT is Romans 13:4. The Apostle Paul writes that it is God who ordains the
secular state to reward good and to punish evil. God established the state to “bear the sword,” that is, to use force to
keep the peace and maintain justice. This limits the use of force and insists that peace, not vengeance, is always the
object of war.

Critical Assessment of JWT:

i. The assumption that just wars can exist is seemingly the base assumption one must accept to accept JWT.
However, there is a troubling, assumption underlying this one: violence is a vicious cycle; if one side uses
violence, the other side is very likely to retaliate with more violence. How, then, can violence be an effective way
to resolve a conflict? In order to eliminate war, we must critique this assumption rather than blindly accept it.

ii. Another critique with JWT is from the point of view of a realist rather than an idealist: Is it useful to have a theory
of just war? No matter how hard we try to hold war up to a moral critique, it will not meet that critique because
war itself is a flawed means of achieving the goals of security, human rights, and other things for which a “just”
war may be fought.
iii. JWT has also often being challenged for not paying enough attention to Jesus and his way of pacifism.

3. WCC’s Decade for Overcoming Violence:

In order to move Peacebuilding from the periphery to the centre of the life and witness of the church and to build
stronger alliances and understanding among churches, networks, and movements which are working toward a
culture of peace, the goals of the WCC’s Decade to Overcome Violence are: addressing holistically the wide varieties
of violence, both direct and structural, in homes, communities, and in international arenas and learning from the local
and regional analyses of violence and ways to overcome violence; challenging the churches to overcome the spirit,
logic, and practice of violence; to relinquish any theological justification of violence; and to affirm anew the spiritually
of reconciliation and active nonviolence; creating a new understanding of security in terms of cooperation and
community, instead of in terms of domination and competition; learning from the spirituality and resources for peace-
building of other faiths to work with communities of other faiths in the pursuit of peace and to challenge the churches
to reflect on the misuse of religious and ethnic identities in pluralistic societies; challenging the growing militarization
of our world, especially the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.

F. CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

1. Ecological problems

27
Ecological problems is a global problem and poses a threat to the survival of humanity and other living creatures.
Many human diseases, extinction of animals and birds, and natural calamities are the results of environmental crisis.
There are so many factors that have contributed to this crisis. Reckless development is one among them. Many
scientific and socio-economic developments are good, but they have to be examined in the light of the growing
ecological problems in the world. Global warming is one of them. This harms agriculture, plant life and animal
kingdom. Development which speeds up deforestation should be curbed. ‘Shift cultivation’ practised by the tribals
contributes to this, but that is not the only reason. The governmental authorities cut down trees without properly
understanding how it affects the eco-system. There are instances in which tribals and aboriginals are used by
external forces with self interest to exploit the resources of the forests without much foresight. It is sad to say that
some of the politicians are the mainstay of these criminal elements.

What would be the Christian response? The integrity of the whole creation and the stewardship are hailed by
Christians, though they never practiced them. However, the Bible asserts the integrity of the whole creation and the
stewardship of the human in relation to creation (Ps. 50:10-11; Ps. 24; Ps. 104). The Bible maintains that God is the
preserver. If so, people have the responsibility to care for and sustain the creation. Christians should raise their
voices against the misuse of science and technology and wrong developmental models. The 4th century church father
Ambrose had aptly said about stewardship: “God has ordained all things to be produced so that there shall be food
for all and that the earth should be a common right for all but greed has made it a right of a few”.

2. Reproductive and Genetic manipulation technologies

a. In vitro fertilisation (IVF)

The technical/scientific term for artificial fertilisation is known as invitro fertilization. In invitro fertilization, ova and
sperm are combined in a glass and then implanted in mother’s womb, when there is problem with fallopian tube
or any other problem. It is used as a device to overcome the infertility or childlessness. It brings happiness and
satisfaction and fulfilment for some parents. It avoids emotional strain in many cases.

There is homologous (Artificial Insemination by Husband – A.I.H) and heterologous (Artificial Insemination by
Donor – A.I.D) artificial insemination. This is done by injection of an amount of fluid. It is introduction of the male
sperm into female organism without normal intercourse. A.I.H is objectionable to some Christians, especially to
the Catholic Church, since the sperm is collected by masturbation, which is considered as sinful. Both A.I.D and
A.I.H also considered by some as violation of marriage bonds.

The advantage of invitro fertilisation is that it provides the possibility to overcome childlessness. But the question
is that should we permit technological intervention in human marriage? Ovum is fertilised outside the mother’s
body and is implanted in mother’s womb which is certainly a manipulation. The use of third party sperm (A.I.D) is
certainly questionable, but it is difficult to challenge the A.I.H. The artificial insemination by Husband should be
accepted as a blessing to overcome infertility.

With regard to invitro fertilisation, Fletcher’s idea is that God does not want anybody to be sterile. Any scientific
method that is available can be used to overcome it. Ramsey allows artificial insemination by husband. Nobody
can justify the A.I.D for the sake of breeding progenies of superior quality. Since there are so many kinds of
manipulations involved in A.I.D, it should be mandatory that only childless couples should practise this.

Invitro fertilisation may in certain cases transcend the sphere of parenthood. It can reduced to research and
experimentation alone. It can also be highly commercialized. It should be permitted only when partners like to
overcome sterility or the oviduct blockage of women. Furthermore, it has to be done only when all other
possibilities are not successful.

28
b. Cloning-Human and Animal

The term ‘cloning’ is derived from the Greek word ‘klon’ which means piece of wood. It is used as a means to
create the genotype. From the information so far cloning is successful in animals. Lambs and calves are born
through cloning. It is an attempt to create carbon copies or Xerox copies. It is an asexual reproduction (without
sexual union) with the removal of nucleus (enucleate) of an ovum and replacing it with the nucleus of an asexual
cell (eg. a skin cell). The resulting baby is expected to be genetically identical with the donor of the nucleus. This
biotechnology is understood as the manipulation of human life.

Cloning in many cases can do terrible harm to the whole humanity or animals. It poses serious dangers to the
parenthood, conjugal love and the covenant relationship, as has been noted by Ramsey. Because of the high
degree of manipulations involved, it is very difficult to see if there can be any justifiable cause of cloning at all.
Here Fletcher’s attempt to justify it situationally does not have much credibility. Justifiably, Fletcher is objecting to
creating distorted human beings (dwarfs, deformed people etc.) which would negatively affect the whole
humanity, but it does not deal sufficiently with the issue of parenthood and conjugal love. Ramsey’s objection of
cloning is quite justifiable. According to Harris, for Ramsey, cloning is a fundamental assault on the human and
personal element in parenthood.

Experiments like cloning should not be permitted. The scientific or bio-research may take any road with
excitement disregarding the good of the humanity. The scientific experiments should not be allowed to distort the
whole concept of parenthood and conjugal love which are God-ordained.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

 As a Christian leader how would you give a Christian ethical response to abortion?
 Give a biblical ethical insight into the equality of men and women in the church
 How would you explain the relationship between poverty and development?
 Write briefly the impact of caste in our society. How do you see the role of the church and its moral
responsibility in combating casteism?
 What do you understand by Communal violence? What is your ethical response in the face of rising
communal tension in Indian in the present context?
 Give a Biblical-ethical response to the issue of war and violence.

29