CHRISTIAN ETHICS AS A DISCIPLINE

In the study of Christian Ethics these two sides must be present: the clarification of the
fundamental principles of the Christian life, and the interpretation of how the
Christian community needs to make ethical judgement and to act in the light of it’s
faith and convictions. In other words, the study of Christian Ethics as an academic
discipline has two general aspects: the theoretical and the practical. The theoretical
aspect deals with the definition of the discipline, it’s nature, it’s criteria, it’s methods,
and it’s problems and prospects. Moreover, it deals with the clarification of the
foundations and basic principles of Christian Ethics. The practical aspect deals with
how the Christian community ought to decide and act in the face of an obligation or
responsibility. This particular study stresses how the Christian ought to decide and act
in the light of his own Christian faith and convictions to fully develop himself as a
human being.

A. Definition of Christian Ethics

The term “ethics” and “moral” are closely related. The term “ethics” is derived from the
Greek word “ethos” which originally meant customs, habitual conduct, usages, and much
later, character. The term “moral” is derived from the Latin word “mores”, which
signifies customs and habits. But customs, habits and practices evoke approval, hence
ethics and moral have reference to the things which people approve as good, right,
desirable, obligatory, worthy, and so forth.

On the other hand, the term, “Christian Ethics” may be used in four different senses
depending on the emphasis a user is making. These four senses are:

1. As a moral code. A moral code is a specific standard of human behavior designed to

meet the need of a particular group of people. The best example of this is the
professional code of ethics. Hence, we have “Medical Ethics”, “Business Ethics”,
“Teacher’s Ethics”, etc. A code specifies how a member of a group relates himself to (a)
profession or work, (b) his fellow workers, and (c) his community or the general public.
Take the case of “Medical Ethics”. In a Christian context this code spells out how a
Christian doctor ought to regard his own profession, how he ought to relate himself to his
fellow doctors and how he ought to relate himself to the patients. In this case, Christian
Ethics means medical ethics as a moral code.

2. As a metaethics. This is a branch of philosophy which is primarily concerned with the

discussions of the meanings or uses of moral terms and utterances about the nature of
moral concepts. In other words, it is “a study of the words and concepts that we use for
making decisions, advising, warning, and appraising conduct.” The direct object of this
study is not practice but knowledge; knowledge of the distinctive uses or roles of moral
language or knowledge of the meanings of moral concepts. Metaethical statements are
about the uses or meanings of normative ethical statements, utterances, or terms about the
logical status of moral claim, about the nature of moral arguments, or about what
constitutes a morality. Two examples of metaethical statements: “Moral utterances are
neither autobiographical statements nor statements of non-natural fact but expressions of
emotion.” “Good” is the name of a simple, unanalyzable, non-natural quality.
Metaethics has been referred to as an analytical ethics, critical ethics, theoretical ethics,
the epistemology of ethics, the logic of ethics, or semantics of ethics.Christian Ethics may
be used in this sense.

3. As a way of life. In this context it is “way of life” exemplified by Jesus Christ. As

such, it is both general and particular. General because it embraces the whole of life.
Particular because it is a “way of life” specifically seen and patterned after the life of
Jesus. It is the Christian way of life. An ethicist puts it this way: “Christian Ethics is a
systematic study of a way of life exemplified by Jesus and applied to the demands and
decisions of personal and social existence.” In this sense, Christian Ethics is not a study
of rules and regulations but of life itself as conceived by the Christian. In the same way
one can speak of “Buddhist Ethics” if one means a way of life exemplified by Buddha, or
of “Moslim Ethics” if one means a way of life patterned after the life of Muhammad. In
brief, Christian Ethics in this sense is a particular ethical system.

4. As a disciplined study. This is the academic sense of Christian Ethics. As a

discipline it organizes itself; it has it’s own field of concerns, it’s methodology, it’s
criteria, and it’s practitioners. As one practitioner puts it: “It is a disciplined study of
obligation, it’s nature, its justifications, it’s consequences and its strategies.” In this
context Christian Ethics is a disciplined study of what a Christian ought to do in the face
of responsibility and how he ought to do it. In brief, Christian Ethics is a systematic
reflection on Christian duty.

Primarily the last two definitions combined together constitute the sense in which
Christian Ethics is used in this study. Thus, Christian Ethics is a systematic and
disciplined study of the style of life and obligation of the Christian in particular, and, all
human kind and the entire creation in general.

Its Nature as a Discipline

As a disciplined study Christian Ethics possesses the following unique characteristics:

1. It is a normative discipline. It is primarily concerned with establishing of norms or

standards of conduct to be followed by a group. Ethical discourse involves at least three
levels: descriptive level where we find the sciences which primarily deal with the
description of what “is”; the normative level where we find ethics which deals primarily
with what ought to be; and the justificative level where we find theology which gives the
justification for doing what we ought to do. Thus, when we speak of norms in this case
we do not mean “operating norms” (descriptive ethics) but we mean “ideal norms”
(normative ethics) which serve as our moral beacon. In short, it is normative in the sense
that it is a search for ought.
2. It is inclusive. It is inclusive in the sense that it includes all of man’s moral
experiences for it’s data. It includes the experience of telling a lie or being lied to, of
stealing or being stolen from, of cheating or being cheated, etc. It includes also the
experience of being forced to do something which one does not want to do either by the
authority of the state or the church or the family. It includes all aspects of human life. In
short, it includes the whole moral ethos. The moral ethos is a “subtle web of values,
meanings, purposes,expectations, and legitimations that constitutes the operating norms
of a culture in relationship to a social entity.

3. It is interdisciplinary. It is interdisciplinary in the sense that it ‘commits practitioners

to undertake joint, supplementary, or complementary theoretical and empirical studies”
in theology, Bible, philosophy, and the sciences. Christian Ethics cannot stand alone as a
discipline . It needs the secular wisdom coming from the sciences and the religious
wisdom coming from the theological, philosophical, and Biblical studies. In turn it gives
the practitioners of the sciences the moral guidance and insights needed in the use and
application of the scientific findings. Ethics and theology are interrelated both in terms
of content and methods. As one writer puts it, “Ethics is theology sent on an errand.”

4. It is reflective/critical/open. It is reflective because it seeks to set forth a system or

standard of human conduct. It tries to show how that system of human conduct and
certain fundamental normative statements can be rationally pursued and supported. It is
critical and open because it takes into consideration all available data needed to make a
decision. It critically looks into all standards of human conduct and chooses the most
appropriate one to achieve its goals. The difference between “being moral” and “being
ethical” lies in the fact of “being reflective and critical”. The moral person obeys the
laws before thinking or even without thinking, but the ethical person thinks critically
before obeying. In brief, Christian Ethics is a rational, critical, and open-ended search
for an emergent coherence (unity).

Its Criteria of Obligation (Ought)

Various criteria have been used by Christians throughout the history of the
Christian religion. But for our purpose in this study we use the following major criteria
of obligation:

1. Criterion of right (or wrong). The assumption of this criterion is that there are
universal and fixed moral imperatives or laws which are binding upon all persons. The
fundamental question is: “What is the chief duty of a person?” the chief duty of the
person to obey the laws. To do right is to follow the law, but to do wrong is to violate it.
In other words, whatever is said or done in obedience to the law is right; whatever is said
or done in disobedience to the law is wrong. The law provides precise moral guidance.
So, this criterion is used by many Christians because of its preciseness.

Nevertheless, criticisms are leveled against this criterion. First, this tends to be
legalistic, giving very little freedom to those who use it. There is a tendency to follow
what is written only in the law and oftentimes the spirit of the law is forgotten. Second,
there are laws which are unjust and obsolete, and so, they must not be followed. If we do
become unjust or we become irrelevant. A third criticism is that sometimes what is just
or good is prohibited by an established law. Jesus found himself in this situation in his
time with regard to the laws of Judaism so that He was prompted to remark and said:
“The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” Because of these
weaknesses of the criterion of right some Christians prefer to use another criterion, that
of good.

2. Criterion of Good (or bad/evil). This criterion assumes that there is the
“highest good or purpose” in life. Thus the fundamental question is: “What is the chief
end (telos) of life?” The answer to this question depends upon one’s philosophical and
religious orientation. For some, like the Greek philosophers, happiness is the highest
good in life. For others, like the Christians, to love God, to worship Him, and to serve
Him is the highest purpose in life. Still for others, life itself is the highest good.
Therefore, one has to know one’s highest good or purpose in life in order that one can
achieve it. To achieve one’s highest good a person has to employ virtues, or maxims or
principles. A principle is a statement of general truth which has to be interpreted in the
light of needs and situations. Thus, a principle gives more freedom to those who use it
than a law does. Given a principle, everything that a person does which helps fulfill his
highest purpose in life is good; whatever he does that hinders it’s achievement is bad or
evil.

A basic criticism against this criterion is that the definition or location of the highest
good or purpose is controversial. Now, where does one find the highest good? Some
find it within themselves. Others find it in the world outside themselves. Still others
find it in the Eternal God. Still many others claim that it is indefinable. In short, there is
no agreement as to what or where is the highest good located. This criterion is vague and
confusing, so many Christians prefer to use another one, that of criterion of fit.

3. Criterion of fit (or unfit). This criterion assumes that there is a most fitting
situation in which to perform an act. This further assumes that there are no fixed
universal laws. There is only one principle, that of love. So, the fundamental question
is: “What is the most loving thing or act a person can do in this particular situation?” To
answer this question most appropriately the person must know the situation very well and
must take into consideration the wisdom of the community. But he makes the final
decision himself as to what and how he ought to decide in a moral situation given the
principle of love.

Many criticisms are leveled against this criterion. For one thing, this is your
subjective and gives too much freedom to the individual. Anyone can and may decide to
do an act which appears to him most loving when in reality it is most selfish. Maturity
and wisdom are required on the part of the individual or in order for him to evaluate most
correctly the most loving act in a most fitting situation given the principle of love alone.
For another thing, this is too concrete and situated and cannot be employed in a national
or international decision-making where a more complicated situation is involved.
Finally, this will lead to chaos because different persons will interpret differently the
principle of love even if given the same situation. Therefore, many Christians not
satisfied with any of the three criteria above, prefer another criterion, that of meaning.

4. Criterion of meaning (or meaningless). The assumption here is that life is

meaningful. Whatever one says or does has or should have meaning. But what is the
basis of meaning? Meaning is based on authentic existence which in turn requires
freedom. In other words, a person must have a freedom to say, to do and to live in a way
that makes sense to him or her. Thus, whatever contributes to a meaningful, coherent life
is what really counts. One may follow a law, or a wise counsel, or use a principle or
maxim, or depend upon a situation or on God’s revelation, to achieve a meaningful and
coherent existence. The point is one must be free to make and act on one’s decision
effecting one’s life.

A basic criticism against this criterion is that this is too broad and gives a person too
much freedom to interpret the meaning of life. This will certainly lead to conflicting
decisions, actions and style of life. Furthermore, this can be sustained only in a
pluralistic society, not in a totalitarian or an authoritarian (martial law) society.

A. Problems/Prospects/Challenges

There are certain factors in human life which pose as both problems and
challenges. Some of these factors may be pointed out as follows:

1. Divergent perspectives

People, including teachers and students have different assumptions or estimates of

life and reality. There are those who look at life and reality from the religious
perspective and there are those who look at the same from the scientific perspective. The
first one emphasizes the activity of God in human affairs and dependence upon God;
while the second one emphasizes the activity of man in shaping his own destiny and his
dependence upon himself for his own welfare and salvation. When a person is strongly
influenced by either one to the exclusion of the other, the problem of understanding
Christian Ethics emerges. In short, we have our own “filters” or “lens” through which
we look at life which may either help or hinder our understanding of what is right, good,
fit, or meaningful.

2. Contextual or situational differences

For one thing, this means differences in the context or situation of those who study
Christian Ethics. This also means the difference between the context in which the Bible
(our basic source for Christian Ethics) was written and the context in which it is now
being taught.

The first case spells out the difficulty in teaching a class of people who come from
different situations in life both in terms of culture and of social status. Some have upper
class values; others have middle class values; still others have lower class values. Thus,
there arise a conflict of values and it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a standard
of human behavior acceptable to all.

The second case brings to us the fact that the Bible is silent on many ethical issues
that are urgent and important to us today. For example, the Bible, in general and Jesus in
particular, is silent on the issue of pollution and population explosion, to cite two cases.
This is so because there were not pressing social issues in Jesus’ time and world. If these
were, Jesus would have said something about these matters and we would have a clearer
guide on how to handle such problems. What Jesus left us is a style of life centered on
love for God and love for neighbors. So we have to do the best we can to reinterpret
Jesus’ teachings for our day and time. This is both a problem and a challenge to us.

3. Knowledge explosion

The explosion of knowledge owing to scientific discoveries complicates the

teaching-learning process of Christian Ethics. The more we discover scientific
knowledge about reality the more the traditional Christian teachings are threatened and
challenged. For example, the Darwinian anthropology, which emphasizes the
evolutionary origin of man, has challenged our traditional view of the creation of man as
told by the Bible. Modern anthropology has also declared that man is by nature
polygamous. The Freudian psychology has challenged our basic Christian affirmation
that God is our Creator because it ahs declared that the emergence of God was due to
man’s psychological needs. Modern psychology has also affirmed that man has
tremendous inner mental powers that are not yet fully discovered and developed.

Although modern science does not deny the existence of an Eternal Reality (God)
there are certain scientific discoveries that bring to mankind grave ethical difficulties.
For example, the discovery of the atomic power poses a moral dilemma for man. What
ought man to do in the face of such a power available to him? In medical science, to
cite another example, the discovery and practice of transplanting human organs (i.e.,
heart) poses the ethical question whether man is or is not playing God while doing this
thing. Indeed, knowledge explosion in science is accompanied by the explosion of
ethical issues. Thus, Christian Ethics can only suggest at best a tentative ethical standard
of human behavior. Its task is an ever ongoing (continuous) process. Its field of main
concern is open-ended.

4. Advent of movements

A movement such as nationalism or patriotism can either enhance or hinder the

teaching-learning process of ethical standards. Narrow-minded nationalism or
patriotism, contradicts the Christian teaching of universal concerns. It creates in people a
feeling of (anti-ism), not only against foreigners but even against our people who do not
subscribe to the brand of nationalism or patriotism we hold. Such bigoted nationalistic
spirit would hinder our search for a common standard of national discipline and conduct.
Such a spirit needs a corrective, that is allowance for some degree of liberality and
tolerance for others who differ from us for mutual enrichment and enlightenment.

Ecumenism, as another example, could be destructive, if it’s the only kind within
the church. It tends to be exclusivist, characterized by rigidity and intolerance, disrespect
and denial of God’s revealing unobtrusive approaches in his love for others of other
living faiths. Also it tends to be inclusivist, for it preempts Jesus Christ’s finality and
uniqueness, and, affirms a priori the superiority of Christianity over all other religious,
evaluates other religious traditions “not in themselves but in relation to Christianity,”
which is religious arrogance, triumphalism and imperialism. Still another wholesome
tendency is to be relativist, a kind of “strategy of playing down differences.” It believes
that each religion is equally true in it’s own way and essence, and that religious ‘peace’ is
achieved by ignoring differences and contradictions. But this is artificial, shallow and
dishonest. Thus, it is not a solution, rather, it only ignores the problems that it claims to
have solved.

And yet, ecumenism, if it goes beyond the church, could be creative. This is the
pluralist model. It upholds a theology of religious dialogue and pluralism, which “holds
that God has manifested and revealed himself in various ways to different people in their
perspective situations.” The Biblical message insists on the “previousness” of grace:
God’s acceptance of us before our acceptance of Him. In this sense, the “people we meet
of whatever religion, race or age, are all God’s people.” It means the other person is as
much a child of God as I am and you which should be the basis of our relationship with
our neighbors. That attitude is at the heart of being in dialogue—which is also at the
very heart of the cross—the consequences of Jesus’ teaching on love. The message
which Jesus gave was good news: that God loves us first and that this is unchanging,
unfailing, and always available.

Hence, the incarnation is “God’s dialogue with the world—an expression of how
God always stands with the human community.” The central message of the Bible is
deeply incarnational and dialogical. It implies that people of other faiths are not outside
the saving activity, initiative and loving concern of God. For the God of the Bible whom
Jesus revealed to us and called Father, rules over all and is in all. His love embraces all
humanity and the entire creation.

This pluralist paradigm affirms the most striking fact in the Synoptics: that Jesus’
own life is entirely God-centered, God-dependent and God-ward. It is a telling argument
that the center of God’s saving design for humankind belongs to God alone, having
manifested and revealed himself in various ways to different peoples in different
cultures, also embodied each in their own way, such as divine self-revelation. This
model sets Christianity in a new and alarming light where there can no longer be any a
priori assumption of overall superiority; rather, the Christian tradition is now seen as one
of a plurality of contexts of salvation—contexts, . . . “within which the transformation of
human existence from self-centeredness to God…is occurring.” This is the most human
and humble way, to set aside, the unity we are seeking, and give a chance for the unity
which is seeking us from God. And this could be the birth of the new Ecumenical
Movement—the answer to Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21).”

To sum it up, the word “ecumenical” or “ecumenics” comes from the Greek
original “OIKOUMENE” which means “household” or “the whole inhabited earth.”
Ecumenism creates an atmosphere of universal understanding and unity. It emphasizes
that human beings are all members of the same household of God. As members of the
same household they should treat each other with respect and understanding. It creates
among people the desire for unity in diversity. It encourages open and frank discussion
of differences and conflicts. It is characterized by the spirit which allows themselves to
differ but resolves to love.

In concluding this unit of study it is fitting to underscore the importance of the

discipline of Christian Ethics. What is said above stresses the fact that Christian Ethics
is an academic discipline comparable to other disciplines in the sense that it has its own
nature, its field of concerns, its criteria, its methods, a unique academic discipline
because its primary aim is to criticize standards of moral decision, actions, and behavior
with the end in view of finding one which is most acceptable to the Christian
community and most helpful in its thinking, decision-making and practicing its own
faith in this present complex world. The importance of Christian Ethics cannot be
overemphasized. Man is a social and ethical being and as such he needs a guide—an
ethical system and a Person. Jesus, as the Christ.

DIGEST OF DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS:

1. Ethics is the study and evaluation of standards of human conduct (Moral

Philosophy).

2. Ethics may be defined as a study of a particular system or ethical standards (i.e.,

Hindu ethics, Moslem ethics, Christian Ethics, etc.).

3. Ethics is the disciplined study of obligation, it’s nature, its justifications, its
consequences, its strategies. It is in simplest terms, reflection on ought (Stackhouse,
Max).

4. Ethics may be defined as critical study of morality. It consists of a systematic

analysis of the nature of the moral life of man, including both the standards of right and
wrong by which his conduct may be guided and the goals toward which it may be
directed. (It is ) … concerned with practical moral choices…and…with the ideal goals
and principles…The study of ethics rests upon the assumption that man is both free and
responsible. (Garner, E. Clinton).

5. Christian Ethics is the science of human conduct as it is determined by Divine

conduct. (Brunner, Emil).
 6. Christian Ethics is a systematic study of a way of life exemplified and taught by
Jesus, applied to the daily demands and decisions of personal and social existence.
(Harkness, Georgia).

7. Theology..is reflection on the action and nature of God; ethics is reflection on the
response of man to the action and nature of God. (Neihbur, H. Richard).

8. Ethics is often used to refer to the task of careful reflection several steps removed
from the actual conduct of men. It is theoretical task; reflection on the ways in which
moral action occurs, the assumptions and presuppositions of moral life.

Moral is often used to refer to the actual conduct of men. It is a practical task: giving
directions to human behavior in the light of what one believes to be right, or good. At
the level of morals one is asking, “What ought I do in this place of responsibility?” or
this, “Is what I am interested in really good?” At the level of ethics one is asking, “What
fundamental principles are involved in determining an answer to the moral questions?”
“What is the nature of the good?” (Gustafson, James).

9. Christian ethics is a history, statistics and politics of the Kingdom of God (Rothe).

10. Christian ethics is the science of living well with one another according to Christ.”
(Rom. 15:5)

BASIC REFERENCES FOR THIS UNIT OF STUDY:

Cave, Sydney. The Christian Way. Digswell Place, J. Nisbet and Co., Ltd. 1963

Gardner, Clinton E. Biblical Faith and Social Ethics. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

Gustafson, James M. Christ and the Moral Life. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1968.

Harkness, Georgia. Christian Ethics. New York: Abingdon, 1957.

Hill, Thomas E. Ethics in Theory and Practice. New York. Thomas Y. Crowell
company, 1956.

Muelder, Walter B. Moral Law in Christian and Social Ethics. Richmond: John Knox
Press. 1966.

Neibuhr, H. Richard. The Responsible Self. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Stockhouse, Max E. “Ethics: Social and Christian” in Andowe Newton Quarterly,

January, 1973. Vol. 13, No. 3.