Q. Isn’t the Bible patriarchally prejudiced, therefore, towards homosexuals?
Ans. The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is not patriarchally based. It is based on the creational nature of sexuality. Sexuality is essentially procreative and sexual attraction has an affectionate dimension that is essentially related to the procreative function. Sexual love is not the same as friendly love or parental love. It is not matriarchal to say that a woman must not have sex with woman in the same way as it is not patriarchal to say that sex between two men is a fundamental aberration. Homosexuality is wrong because it severs desire from its natural directive/objective and grants it autonomy; in other words, it let’s desire lead.
Q. Paul in Romans 1, 1Corinthians 6, and 1Timothy 1 is referring to nonconsensual homosexual practices between older men and constrained young boys or slaves. It doesn’t refer to homosexuality in the modern sense, right?
Ans. Paul is not referring to rape or sexual exploitation, but is explicitly referring to homosexuality that was primarily consensual. The Greek term ἀλλήλους used in Romans 1:27 and translated as “one another” in the statement “they burned in their lust for one another” is a reciprocal pronoun and a masculine accusative plural. Paul is not talking about immoral acts committed against the will of others but is talking about people who reject God and let their “vile passions” (πάθη) lead them (Rom.1:26).
Q. Isn’t the acceptance of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 affirmative of God’s acceptance of homosexuality?
Ans. It is only affirmative of God’s acceptance of eunuchs through Jesus Christ who were originally castrated individuals and not allowed to serve in the Tabernacle. There is no basis for associating that particular Eunuch with transgenderism or with homosexuality. There are some who theorize that homosexuals might have been chosen to take care of royal harems, but that is a mere hypothesis. Nevertheless, God’s arms are open to all sinners, including homosexuals provided they repent of their sins. God loves the homosexual (who is a person), but God hates homosexuality (which is a sin). The baptism symbolized the Eunuch’s repentance from sin towards God.
Q. Is it wrong to have romantic feelings for a member of the same-sex?
Ans. It is wrong to nurture the feelings instead of rejecting them. That is true also for adulterous feelings towards a member of the opposite sex.
Q. Then, why does someone have those feelings? Aren’t they God-given?
Ans. It is like saying that if someone has adulterous feelings, they must be God-given; or worse, if someone has paedophilic feelings, they must be God-given. That is judicially irrational and morally confusing. If every feeling comes from God, then moral freedom and moral decision becomes unreasonable. If that were true then, ultimately nothing would be wrong.
Q. But, same-sex attraction is inborn and is not the same as those other forms of desires. One is born that way.
Ans. That needs to be established. There is, presently, no scientific evidence for the born-that-way argument. But, even if it is claimed that there is such evidence (based on empirical studies, which are open to falsification by other studies), the biblical injunction in this matter is clear. Homosexual acts are morally condemned in the Bible, which implies that the Bible regards them as willful choices. If something were “natural”, condemnation of it would be unnatural and false. Since the Bible condemns homosexual act, it cannot be a “natural” act but is as Romans 1 calls it, “unnatural” act.
Q. But, isn’t that begging the question?
Ans. That the presence of smoke implies there must be fire is not begging the question.
Q. You referred to paedophilic feelings. But these are not the same as homosexual feelings. Sex with a child is never consensual, but homosexual acts usually are consensual.
And. I have also referred to adulterous feelings. Adultery is wrong even if consensual.
Q. There was no concept of same-sex marriage in the biblical times, so the writers only wrote with reference to prevailing marriage customs. If same-sex marriage were common, they would not oppose homosexuality.
And. The right way to say would be that same-sex marriage was not common because biblical law forbade same-sex relationships. Today, same-sex marriage is accepted where biblical authority is nullified.
Q. But there are Christian churches that are are gay-friendly and advocate equality.
And. There were various kinds of churches in biblical times that were totally opposed to apostolic teaching. There were also synagogues of Satan.
Q. Isn't that discrimination against a minority group?
And. What is the discrimination?
Q. Homosexuals are regarded as sinners in the same category with thieves and murderers.
And. We are called to respect all fellow humans without any discrimination. However, this does not mean that we fail to distinguish between morally right and wrong behaviors. The Bible does condemn homosexuality as sin. The church is open to all and there is transformation power in Jesus for all who confess their sins and turn to God. But, if someone denies sin as sin, the Bible cannot change for their sake. The moral law is a priori and thus immutable. We are called to love everyone but are also called to rebuke and expose sin.
Q. Homosexuals are as normal as anyone else. They are not deviant people. Their romance life is the same as that of heterosexuals. They are kind and good people.
Ans. Homosexuals are not more sinful than other people who are also sinners but look very normal, intelligent, and good. It is the idea that homosexuals are psychologically "sick" that is behind the view that homosexuals are regarded as abnormal. The Bible doesn't regard them as less normal than other people who are all sinners. However, it does say that all who have turned away from God became debased in mind. (Rom.1:21-22)
Q. If a Christian has same-sex attraction and can't help it, what should he or she do?
And. The Bible promises that with every temptation, there is also a way out. But the starting point is to recognize that homosexuality is sin. The feelings are not sin, but harboring and nurturing them and enjoying them is certainly sin. The first step is to acknowledge that homosexuality is sin. The second step is self-control. The third step is to morally appreciate the natural. If not, celibacy may be the only option left.
Q. What if it is impossible for a person to have heterosexual feelings?
Ans. There may be cases where a person might be dominated only homosexual desire, though in most cases heterosexual attraction still exists and the natural part (heterosexual attraction) is to be appreciated within the moral limits while the unnatural one (homosexual) has to be detested. If someone is incapable of heterosexuality, the immediate solution is continence and celibacy. The Bible promises transformation, renewal of heart, and sanctification for all who seek to obey the Gospel and be led by the Spirit instead of by the passions of the flesh.
Q. Why oppose homosexuality when it is not damaging to others? Isn't it just a private issue?
Ans. That is a hasty generalization and also an error with respect to moral understanding. Firstly, morality is not determined by consequences as opined by utilitarians. The end does not justify the means. Homosexuality is exposed as wrong by the scriptures. It is not about opposition, but about recognition of homosexual acts as morally wrong since they violate the intrinsic moral nature of sexuality. To rip sexuality off its intrinsic nature and posit it as merely instrumental is a violation of its sanctity. Christian ethics is not determined by the harm principle. Secondly, it is too hasty to conclude that Christian acceptance of homosexuality will not have negative consequences. There are already social consequences of its social acceptance in accepting societies. In contexts where procreation is devalued due to social and economic constraints, and where homosexuality starts becoming publicly appreciated in media, literature, and public policies, there can be serious damaging effects on heterosexual values. But, even if there were none, the a priori categorization of homosexuality as immoral remains unchanged in Christian ethics. While Christians do not oppose what non-Christians do in their private spheres, they will oppose, as responsible citizens, any invasion of their spaces - for instance, if homosexual graphics that might be potentially harmful to moral values are displayed in public arenas (billboards, advertisements).
Showing posts with label Christian Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Ethics. Show all posts
April 01, 2020
March 24, 2019
The Divine Basis of the Great Commandment
The essential Christian ethic is love. The commands such as "Do not murder", "Do not bear false witness", and the like are by virtue of this essential principle.One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)So, while particulars such as "Do not murder", "Do not steal", etc do not apply to God (who is One and there is no other distinct god(s) to kill or steal from), the universal essential principle of love must find its basis in Him; otherwise, it becomes invalid and non-essential. The Scriptures, however, makes it quite obvious that the Triune God is the supreme foundation of the Great Commandment.
While one may not find a big issue in God's exemplification of the second command to love one's neighbor as oneself (Jesus incarnated as flesh and blood and became our Good Samaritan), one can also clearly see in the Scripture that the Triune God exemplifies the first command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart..."
One may ask, "How can that be possible, since there is no God above God? How can God love God will all His heart...?" The answer is that Jesus did refer to the Father as "My God", as in "My God and My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Similarly, the Father refers to the Son as God when He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8).
Similar verses that affirm love within the divine community fill the pages of the Gospels.
September 05, 2014
What Does the Bible Mean When It Asks Women to Cover Their Heads?
See The Position of Women in the Bible
In 1Corinthians 11:4-14, Paul gives instructions regarding headcovering in the Church. He instructs that women should cover their head while praying or prophesying in the public. However, with regard to men, he says that a man ought not to cover his head. His arguments are as follows:
1. A man who prays or prophesies, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
2. A woman who prays or prophesies, without having her head covered, dishonors her head.
3. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God.
4. A woman ought to cover her head since she is the glory of man.
5. Headcovering is seen as a symbol of authority (1Cor.11:10), at least in that culture.
6. A woman ought to cover her head because of the angels (1Cor.11:10).
7. "Nature" (that is laws of understanding, in this regard, as related to the culture) teaches that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, but it is an honor for a woman to have long hair (1Cor.11: 14)
Conclusively, a woman's hair ought to be long and, during prayer, must be covered.
It is important to note here that headcovering for men, as well as uncut hair, was common among the Jews (Lev.16:4; Zech.3:5; Num.6:5). However, the same was not considered "natural" among the Romans. Of course, commentators like John Gill believe that this change in the New Testament is because Christ the head of the man is now in heaven and man is so liberated; however, since the head of woman is man, she ought to cover her head. Nevertheless, the very language that associates covering with headship and honor suggests a semantic association rather than an ontic one; that is, the relation doesn't appear to be compelled by a logical necessity but only by the grammar of a culture that gives a practice its semantic sense. The chief point of the instruction is that one must not disregard the cultural sense of honor and shame in public worship. Of course, culture is not static and undergoes changes as its elements also undergo semantic changes - their meanings change. For instance, folding of sleeves might be symbolic of vandalism at some time, some where. It might symbolize a common style at some other time at some other place. Whatever, one must not be insensitive to cultural language (especially, when elements that have one meaning in our culture have another meaning in some other culture).
For More Questions and Discussions Check Theology of Clothing
_________________
April 13, 2016
HEADCOVERING AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS
(From Wiki article Veil)
Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public. Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia. Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.
1. A man who prays or prophesies, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
2. A woman who prays or prophesies, without having her head covered, dishonors her head.
3. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God.
4. A woman ought to cover her head since she is the glory of man.
5. Headcovering is seen as a symbol of authority (1Cor.11:10), at least in that culture.
6. A woman ought to cover her head because of the angels (1Cor.11:10).
7. "Nature" (that is laws of understanding, in this regard, as related to the culture) teaches that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, but it is an honor for a woman to have long hair (1Cor.11: 14)
Conclusively, a woman's hair ought to be long and, during prayer, must be covered.
It is important to note here that headcovering for men, as well as uncut hair, was common among the Jews (Lev.16:4; Zech.3:5; Num.6:5). However, the same was not considered "natural" among the Romans. Of course, commentators like John Gill believe that this change in the New Testament is because Christ the head of the man is now in heaven and man is so liberated; however, since the head of woman is man, she ought to cover her head. Nevertheless, the very language that associates covering with headship and honor suggests a semantic association rather than an ontic one; that is, the relation doesn't appear to be compelled by a logical necessity but only by the grammar of a culture that gives a practice its semantic sense. The chief point of the instruction is that one must not disregard the cultural sense of honor and shame in public worship. Of course, culture is not static and undergoes changes as its elements also undergo semantic changes - their meanings change. For instance, folding of sleeves might be symbolic of vandalism at some time, some where. It might symbolize a common style at some other time at some other place. Whatever, one must not be insensitive to cultural language (especially, when elements that have one meaning in our culture have another meaning in some other culture).
One important thing to note is that the Bible doesn’t lament a culture if that culture properly functions to safeguard the Christian virtues. However, it does oppose any culture that turns the natural into unnatural, that promotes a false sense of shame and honor and despises what God has divinely instituted in nature. Therefore, whenever a clothing or even hair style is culturally distinguished as masculine or feminine, violation of the same within that culture is considered unnatural by God – not because a dress form is absolutely masculine or feminine, but because the dress form in the language of the particular culture means either masculine or feminine (Deut.22:5; 1Cor.11:14). Therefore, violation of the dress form becomes a violation of nature itself in the same manner that one cannot violate grammar of a particular language and still make sense in that language. The argument that the violation doesn’t exist in another language will not apply in this particular language. (Clothing and Culture)In every rule stated in the Scripture, it is important to look not at the letter of the law but at the spirit of the law (2Cor. 3:6).
For More Questions and Discussions Check Theology of Clothing
_________________
April 13, 2016
HEADCOVERING AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS
(From Wiki article Veil)
Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public. Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia. Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.
December 18, 2012
Christian Ethics in Family and Society
TO PARENTS
A. Encourage your child (Colossians 3:21)
Don’t let them feel discouraged, sullen, inferior, or frustrated.
Give gifts (Luke 11:11-13), Forgive, don’t dig the past (Luke 15:22)
B. Discipline him/her while he is young (Proverbs 19:18; Hebrews 12:10)
C. Nurture him/her in the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)
1. In the training (Proverbs 22:6, Catechize, 2Timothy 3:15)
2. Discipline (Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 19:18; 23:13,14; 29:15,17)
3. Counsel
4. Admonition
D. Do not Irritate your child (Colossians 3:21; Ephesians 6:4)
1. Do not provoke to anger
2. Do not exasperate him/her to resentment
3. Do not fret
4. Do not be hard on them or harass them
5. Do not break their spirit
E. Provide for one’s home (1Timothy 5:8; Proverbs 31:21,22,24,27).
TO CHILDREN
A. Obey your parents in all things. Make it a lifestyle to obey. For this is well pleasing unto the Lord (Colossians 3:20).
B. Obey your parents in the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1). For this is right.
C. Honor them (Ephesians 6:2,3). That it may be well with you, and that you may live long.
D. Serve them (1Timothy 5:4).
The wrath of God descends on the disobedient (Romans 1:30,32)
TO MARRIED COUPLES
A. In Union (Together) (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1Corinthians 7:5,10)
1. Mutual Love (1Corinthians 7:3, Conjugal rights, goodwill, kindness, etc)
2. Mutual Self-Giving/Submit to Authority of Other (1Corinthians 7:4)
3. Mutual Consent (1Corinthians 7:5. In submission to the Lord. Not like Ananias and Sapphira as in Acts 5, but like the Shunammite couple in 2Kings 4:9)
B. Duties of Husbands
1. Be the Head of your wife (Ephesians 5:23; 1Corinthians 11:3. Leadership, decision-making)
2. Make Christ your Head (1Corinthians 11:3)
3. Follow Christ’s Example (Christ’s love for the Church)
a. Love (Ephesians 5:25,28,33; Colossians 3:19)
b. Nourish, protect, and cherish her (Ephesians 5:29)
c. Honor her with great respect (1Peter 3:7)
C. Duties of Wives
1. Be Body/helpmeet for him (Genesis 2:20)
Accept his headship/rulership (Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:22)
Be bound to him till he dies (Romans 7:2)
2. Desire for him alone (Genesis 3:16)
3. Learn from husband (1Corinthians 14:35)
4. Be subject to husband as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22,24)
a. Submission in obedience (Titus 2:5; 1Peter 3:1)
b. Adaptation
5. Revere husband (Ephesians 5:33)
a. Notice him (pay attention, have concern)
b. Regard him
c. Honor him
d. Prefer him
e. Venerate, esteem him (think highly of, value greatly)
f. Defer to him (submission)
g. Praise him
h. Love and admire him exceedingly
6. Be sober, wise (Titus 2:4; Proverbs 31:26,30)
7. Be trustworthy (Proverbs 31:11,12)
8. Be self-controlled (Titus 2:5)
9. Be chaste (Titus 2:5; Proverbs 31:10,25,11; 1Peter 3:2)
10. Be homemakers (Proverbs 31:28,29, 15,16,18,21)
11. Be good natured, kindhearted (Proverbs 31:12)
12. Be hardworking (Proverbs 31:12-30). Not be idle (1Timothy 5:13)
13. Be meek and quiet (1Peter 3:4-6). Not nagging (Proverbs 21:19, 9; 19:13; 27:15)
TO FELLOW CHRISTIANS
1. Prayer (Colossians 4:12; Acts 12:5; James 5:15)
2. Love (Romans 12:10)
3. Honor (Romans 12:10)
4. Help, Assistance, Aid (Romans 12:13; 1Corinthians 16:1; Galatians 6:6)
5. Hospitality (Romans 12:13; 1Timothy 3:2)
6. Sympathy (Romans 12:15; Galatians 6:2; Romans 15:1-7)
7. Humility (Romans 12:16)
8. Goodness (Romans 12:17)
9. Honest (Romans 12:17; 1Corinthians 8:21; Truthfulness, Ephesians 4:25,15)
10. Edifying words (Ephesians 4:29)
11. Restoration (Galatians 6:1,2)
12. Exhortation (2Timothy 4:2)
13. Mutual Subjection (1Peter 5:5)
14. Forbearing (Colossians 3:13)
15. Forgiving (Colossians 3:13)
TO SERVANTS
1. Honor master, boss. (1Timothy 6:1,2)
2. Obey (Ephesians 6:5, 6-8; Colossians 3:23-25)
a. With fear
b. Single-heartedly
c. As unto Christ
d. Not as men-pleasers
e. But as Christ’s servants
f. Doing God’s will
3. Don’t answer back (Titus 2:9)
4. Faithful (Titus 2:10)
5. Subjection (1Peter 2:18-20)
TO MASTERS (BOSSES)
1. Do not threaten (Ephesians 6:9)
Don’t be violent. Don’t use abusive words
2. Be just and fair (Colossians 4:1)
Do not exploit. Give the right wages. Be merciful. Treat them with respect.
TOWARDS THE WORLD IN GENERAL
1. Intercede for them (1Timothy 2:1-4; Isaiah 12:23)
2. Honor (1Peter 2:17)
3. Be honest (Romans 12:17)
4. Speak edifying words (Ephesians 4:29)
5. Witness (1Thessalonians 2:4; 1Peter 3:1-5; Philippians 1:13; Matthew 5:14; Philippians 2:15)
6. Follow the Golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
7. Keep no debts but love (Romans 13:7-8)
TOWARDS AUTHORITIES
1. Honor them (Romans 13:7)
2. Be subject to them (Romans 13:1; 1Peter 2:13-16)
3. Pray/Intercede for them (1Timothy 2:2-4)
A. Encourage your child (Colossians 3:21)
Don’t let them feel discouraged, sullen, inferior, or frustrated.
Give gifts (Luke 11:11-13), Forgive, don’t dig the past (Luke 15:22)
B. Discipline him/her while he is young (Proverbs 19:18; Hebrews 12:10)
C. Nurture him/her in the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)
1. In the training (Proverbs 22:6, Catechize, 2Timothy 3:15)
2. Discipline (Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 19:18; 23:13,14; 29:15,17)
3. Counsel
4. Admonition
D. Do not Irritate your child (Colossians 3:21; Ephesians 6:4)
1. Do not provoke to anger
2. Do not exasperate him/her to resentment
3. Do not fret
4. Do not be hard on them or harass them
5. Do not break their spirit
E. Provide for one’s home (1Timothy 5:8; Proverbs 31:21,22,24,27).
TO CHILDREN
A. Obey your parents in all things. Make it a lifestyle to obey. For this is well pleasing unto the Lord (Colossians 3:20).
B. Obey your parents in the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1). For this is right.
C. Honor them (Ephesians 6:2,3). That it may be well with you, and that you may live long.
D. Serve them (1Timothy 5:4).
The wrath of God descends on the disobedient (Romans 1:30,32)
TO MARRIED COUPLES
A. In Union (Together) (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1Corinthians 7:5,10)
1. Mutual Love (1Corinthians 7:3, Conjugal rights, goodwill, kindness, etc)
2. Mutual Self-Giving/Submit to Authority of Other (1Corinthians 7:4)
3. Mutual Consent (1Corinthians 7:5. In submission to the Lord. Not like Ananias and Sapphira as in Acts 5, but like the Shunammite couple in 2Kings 4:9)
B. Duties of Husbands
1. Be the Head of your wife (Ephesians 5:23; 1Corinthians 11:3. Leadership, decision-making)
2. Make Christ your Head (1Corinthians 11:3)
3. Follow Christ’s Example (Christ’s love for the Church)
a. Love (Ephesians 5:25,28,33; Colossians 3:19)
b. Nourish, protect, and cherish her (Ephesians 5:29)
c. Honor her with great respect (1Peter 3:7)
C. Duties of Wives
1. Be Body/helpmeet for him (Genesis 2:20)
Accept his headship/rulership (Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:22)
Be bound to him till he dies (Romans 7:2)
2. Desire for him alone (Genesis 3:16)
3. Learn from husband (1Corinthians 14:35)
4. Be subject to husband as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22,24)
a. Submission in obedience (Titus 2:5; 1Peter 3:1)
b. Adaptation
5. Revere husband (Ephesians 5:33)
a. Notice him (pay attention, have concern)
b. Regard him
c. Honor him
d. Prefer him
e. Venerate, esteem him (think highly of, value greatly)
f. Defer to him (submission)
g. Praise him
h. Love and admire him exceedingly
6. Be sober, wise (Titus 2:4; Proverbs 31:26,30)
7. Be trustworthy (Proverbs 31:11,12)
8. Be self-controlled (Titus 2:5)
9. Be chaste (Titus 2:5; Proverbs 31:10,25,11; 1Peter 3:2)
10. Be homemakers (Proverbs 31:28,29, 15,16,18,21)
11. Be good natured, kindhearted (Proverbs 31:12)
12. Be hardworking (Proverbs 31:12-30). Not be idle (1Timothy 5:13)
13. Be meek and quiet (1Peter 3:4-6). Not nagging (Proverbs 21:19, 9; 19:13; 27:15)
TO FELLOW CHRISTIANS
1. Prayer (Colossians 4:12; Acts 12:5; James 5:15)
2. Love (Romans 12:10)
3. Honor (Romans 12:10)
4. Help, Assistance, Aid (Romans 12:13; 1Corinthians 16:1; Galatians 6:6)
5. Hospitality (Romans 12:13; 1Timothy 3:2)
6. Sympathy (Romans 12:15; Galatians 6:2; Romans 15:1-7)
7. Humility (Romans 12:16)
8. Goodness (Romans 12:17)
9. Honest (Romans 12:17; 1Corinthians 8:21; Truthfulness, Ephesians 4:25,15)
10. Edifying words (Ephesians 4:29)
11. Restoration (Galatians 6:1,2)
12. Exhortation (2Timothy 4:2)
13. Mutual Subjection (1Peter 5:5)
14. Forbearing (Colossians 3:13)
15. Forgiving (Colossians 3:13)
TO SERVANTS
1. Honor master, boss. (1Timothy 6:1,2)
2. Obey (Ephesians 6:5, 6-8; Colossians 3:23-25)
a. With fear
b. Single-heartedly
c. As unto Christ
d. Not as men-pleasers
e. But as Christ’s servants
f. Doing God’s will
3. Don’t answer back (Titus 2:9)
4. Faithful (Titus 2:10)
5. Subjection (1Peter 2:18-20)
TO MASTERS (BOSSES)
1. Do not threaten (Ephesians 6:9)
Don’t be violent. Don’t use abusive words
2. Be just and fair (Colossians 4:1)
Do not exploit. Give the right wages. Be merciful. Treat them with respect.
TOWARDS THE WORLD IN GENERAL
1. Intercede for them (1Timothy 2:1-4; Isaiah 12:23)
2. Honor (1Peter 2:17)
3. Be honest (Romans 12:17)
4. Speak edifying words (Ephesians 4:29)
5. Witness (1Thessalonians 2:4; 1Peter 3:1-5; Philippians 1:13; Matthew 5:14; Philippians 2:15)
6. Follow the Golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
7. Keep no debts but love (Romans 13:7-8)
TOWARDS AUTHORITIES
1. Honor them (Romans 13:7)
2. Be subject to them (Romans 13:1; 1Peter 2:13-16)
3. Pray/Intercede for them (1Timothy 2:2-4)
December 02, 1998
Christian Agapistic Ethics
From Marbaniang, Domenic. Ethics (1998). Published as Philosophical Ethics (2012)
2.1.1.3. Christianity and Normative Ethics
Christian ethics, as the author believes, is a mean between Teleological and Deontological Ethics. The concept is that of a God who wills a universal law for all humans, at all times, a Will that is in accordance to His own nature and, therefore, a necessary, for all existence contingent on Him. Any being that rebels against this Will rebels against its own well-being or good, that is contingent on the Creator. The good expresses the teleological dimension and the necessary will expresses the deontological dimensions of Christian ethics. Since this Will is of Divine nature, it must be revealed by the illumination of the Spirit in man. Since man, as the Revelation (Scripture) tells us, is created in the image and likeness of God, he is able to know and choose this will for his life. However, the fallennes of man has alienated him from the divine will. Therefore, for the unsaved, the ethical code is terrestrially oriented or teleological. Thus, the five general laws: one for honor of parents, and four against falsehood, murder, theft, and adultery.
The above laws are not absolutes: they are externals of an intrinsic Law that is an attribute of the Creator Himself. The Biblical word used is agape. This view of Biblical ethics is also known as the Ethics of Love, or Judeo-Christian Agapistic Ethics.[1]
The basis of Biblical ethics is Matthew 22: 37 – 40.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like unto it. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Hunnex outlines four lines of interpretations of Biblical agapistic ethics within Christianity: Traditional, Evangelical, nontraditional, and Pure agapism.
2.1.1.3.1. Traditional Agapistic Ethics
Based on the rule “Love the Lord thy God with all your being” (it implies obedience to His commands) and “Love your neighbor as yourself,”it is also known as deontological agapism , or act deontology because of its emphasis on the ought, which originates in the divine command.
2.1.1.3.2. Evangelical Agapistic Ethics
According to Evangelical agapistic ethics, the indwelling Christ is the source of that supernatural love that produces acts in conformity to Biblical imperatives. This is also known as authoritarian agapism. Those without the indwelling Christ have the moral law “written in their hearts” that distinguishes right from wrong (Rom. 2. 14 – 15).
2.1.1.3.3. Nontraditional Agapistic Ethics
The focus on the present human reality or situations gives rise to a form of act deontology or situation ethics (e.g., in Fletcher, Gustafson, Tillich, or Lehmann) or utilitarianism, wherein man becomes the measure of all things and loving one’s neighbor is equal to loving God. The law of love, here, becomes or approximates the principle of benevolence.
2.1.1.3.4. Pure Agapism
Pure agapism frees love from any objects such as God or neighbor and considers love by itself alone as the only moral absolute; thus, pure. However, love can not be understood by itself alone. Love must either be understood as love-acts or love-rules; therefore, Act agapism and Rule agapism.
2.1.1.3.4.1. Act Agapism
Love rather than rules becomes the determiner of right or wrong acts in any given situation (situationism, religious existentialism, antinomianism).
2.1.1.3.4.2. Rule Agapism
One should only follow love-producing or love-embodying rules.
[1] Hunnex, Charts, p. 26.
The desire of man for the good is often clouded by his immediate responses to things and experiences immediate, which he thinks and feels are good. Impatience and lack of self-restraint together with ignorance and lack of discretion are the main reasons for such deviations. Theistic absolutism offers the solution to this problem by stating that the God of this creation has given us His moral laws which are absolute; adherence to His laws is the solution to life’s problems.
That is a wonderful solution; for here man is no longer called to drag on his autonomous reason, but confidently walk according to the revealed laws of God. But, as we have already seen in Chapter two, theistic absolutism raises two problems:
(1) Knowledge of the law is not enough. Wisdom and the ability and strength to perform must accompany it.
(2) That the moral laws of God (especially the Ten Commandments) are absolutes and yet conflict at times.
Let us deal with problem #2 first, and then proceed on to the first. Are the moral laws of God [all of them] absolutes? The answer is “No”. [Some] are relative to people, circumstances, places, and times; so that “Do not kill” is relative to the true Israelite brotherhood, and “Kill the Amalekites” is relative to the people circumstances of Amalekites. There is only one law that is absolute, unchanging, unconditional, and commanding the strictest obedience: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve.” (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10). It is unconditional and absolute without exceptions (Romans 1:18-24; 25-32). This is the standard whereby all other laws gain their position. This is the King of the laws, the others are servants and subjects. That doesn’t disvalue them. They serve their purpose in their own limitations. They “ought” to be followed without exceptions, but in their own limitations, as the law of gravity functions within its own limitations; the law of aerodynamics within its own area and position. We need to understand which of these laws are to be followed in a given situation.
The second problem (the first one, actually for it’s the prime) is the insufficiency to fulfill the command. Christians call it “the fallen nature of man” that cannot fulfill the law of God. This time the Christian denies his autonomous reasoning and clings to the God-given solution – the Cross of Christ. The laws of God have found their perfection in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him and walk in His footsteps (in His manner, as He would do it if He were here) obey the Father and do His will. On the Cross, the old man (sin-nature) has died – the penalty of sin removed [God’s law makes man responsible to His Court of Justice]. Today the power of sin is being removed. The Holy Spirit’s power is available for our strength and sufficiency, His guidance to direct us to do what is “right”, what is “good” in the sight of the Lord; for what is good is what is approved as good by God: HE IS GOOD HIMSELF and the creator of all good things.
Christian ethics is Christo-centric ethics, not man-dependent ethics. Reason and experience are directed by the Holy Spirit as you give Him freedom to do so. “What must I do in this situation?” then finds its answer in the love of Christ, and so of His children, the willingness to do as He would do, and the guidance and strength from the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christianity. To deny this is to deny Christ and His Cross. To deny this is to deny God and His Holy Spirit.
“What I ought to do” is “what God decides”, not “what I decide” in Christian ethics – the ethics of Faith, Love, and Loyalty. “Not by sight, do we walk, but by faith”, “We make it our aim to please Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:7, 9).
2.1.1.3. Christianity and Normative Ethics
Christian ethics, as the author believes, is a mean between Teleological and Deontological Ethics. The concept is that of a God who wills a universal law for all humans, at all times, a Will that is in accordance to His own nature and, therefore, a necessary, for all existence contingent on Him. Any being that rebels against this Will rebels against its own well-being or good, that is contingent on the Creator. The good expresses the teleological dimension and the necessary will expresses the deontological dimensions of Christian ethics. Since this Will is of Divine nature, it must be revealed by the illumination of the Spirit in man. Since man, as the Revelation (Scripture) tells us, is created in the image and likeness of God, he is able to know and choose this will for his life. However, the fallennes of man has alienated him from the divine will. Therefore, for the unsaved, the ethical code is terrestrially oriented or teleological. Thus, the five general laws: one for honor of parents, and four against falsehood, murder, theft, and adultery.
The above laws are not absolutes: they are externals of an intrinsic Law that is an attribute of the Creator Himself. The Biblical word used is agape. This view of Biblical ethics is also known as the Ethics of Love, or Judeo-Christian Agapistic Ethics.[1]
The basis of Biblical ethics is Matthew 22: 37 – 40.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like unto it. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Hunnex outlines four lines of interpretations of Biblical agapistic ethics within Christianity: Traditional, Evangelical, nontraditional, and Pure agapism.
2.1.1.3.1. Traditional Agapistic Ethics
Based on the rule “Love the Lord thy God with all your being” (it implies obedience to His commands) and “Love your neighbor as yourself,”it is also known as deontological agapism , or act deontology because of its emphasis on the ought, which originates in the divine command.
2.1.1.3.2. Evangelical Agapistic Ethics
According to Evangelical agapistic ethics, the indwelling Christ is the source of that supernatural love that produces acts in conformity to Biblical imperatives. This is also known as authoritarian agapism. Those without the indwelling Christ have the moral law “written in their hearts” that distinguishes right from wrong (Rom. 2. 14 – 15).
2.1.1.3.3. Nontraditional Agapistic Ethics
The focus on the present human reality or situations gives rise to a form of act deontology or situation ethics (e.g., in Fletcher, Gustafson, Tillich, or Lehmann) or utilitarianism, wherein man becomes the measure of all things and loving one’s neighbor is equal to loving God. The law of love, here, becomes or approximates the principle of benevolence.
2.1.1.3.4. Pure Agapism
Pure agapism frees love from any objects such as God or neighbor and considers love by itself alone as the only moral absolute; thus, pure. However, love can not be understood by itself alone. Love must either be understood as love-acts or love-rules; therefore, Act agapism and Rule agapism.
2.1.1.3.4.1. Act Agapism
Love rather than rules becomes the determiner of right or wrong acts in any given situation (situationism, religious existentialism, antinomianism).
2.1.1.3.4.2. Rule Agapism
One should only follow love-producing or love-embodying rules.
[1] Hunnex, Charts, p. 26.
The Absolute Law of God and Christian Ethics
The desire of man for the good is often clouded by his immediate responses to things and experiences immediate, which he thinks and feels are good. Impatience and lack of self-restraint together with ignorance and lack of discretion are the main reasons for such deviations. Theistic absolutism offers the solution to this problem by stating that the God of this creation has given us His moral laws which are absolute; adherence to His laws is the solution to life’s problems.
That is a wonderful solution; for here man is no longer called to drag on his autonomous reason, but confidently walk according to the revealed laws of God. But, as we have already seen in Chapter two, theistic absolutism raises two problems:
(1) Knowledge of the law is not enough. Wisdom and the ability and strength to perform must accompany it.
(2) That the moral laws of God (especially the Ten Commandments) are absolutes and yet conflict at times.
Let us deal with problem #2 first, and then proceed on to the first. Are the moral laws of God [all of them] absolutes? The answer is “No”. [Some] are relative to people, circumstances, places, and times; so that “Do not kill” is relative to the true Israelite brotherhood, and “Kill the Amalekites” is relative to the people circumstances of Amalekites. There is only one law that is absolute, unchanging, unconditional, and commanding the strictest obedience: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve.” (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10). It is unconditional and absolute without exceptions (Romans 1:18-24; 25-32). This is the standard whereby all other laws gain their position. This is the King of the laws, the others are servants and subjects. That doesn’t disvalue them. They serve their purpose in their own limitations. They “ought” to be followed without exceptions, but in their own limitations, as the law of gravity functions within its own limitations; the law of aerodynamics within its own area and position. We need to understand which of these laws are to be followed in a given situation.
The second problem (the first one, actually for it’s the prime) is the insufficiency to fulfill the command. Christians call it “the fallen nature of man” that cannot fulfill the law of God. This time the Christian denies his autonomous reasoning and clings to the God-given solution – the Cross of Christ. The laws of God have found their perfection in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him and walk in His footsteps (in His manner, as He would do it if He were here) obey the Father and do His will. On the Cross, the old man (sin-nature) has died – the penalty of sin removed [God’s law makes man responsible to His Court of Justice]. Today the power of sin is being removed. The Holy Spirit’s power is available for our strength and sufficiency, His guidance to direct us to do what is “right”, what is “good” in the sight of the Lord; for what is good is what is approved as good by God: HE IS GOOD HIMSELF and the creator of all good things.
Christian ethics is Christo-centric ethics, not man-dependent ethics. Reason and experience are directed by the Holy Spirit as you give Him freedom to do so. “What must I do in this situation?” then finds its answer in the love of Christ, and so of His children, the willingness to do as He would do, and the guidance and strength from the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christianity. To deny this is to deny Christ and His Cross. To deny this is to deny God and His Holy Spirit.
“What I ought to do” is “what God decides”, not “what I decide” in Christian ethics – the ethics of Faith, Love, and Loyalty. “Not by sight, do we walk, but by faith”, “We make it our aim to please Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:7, 9).
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)