What is Christian Ethics?
“Many Christian ethicists have shifted their focus much more toward virtues and the formation of character, and away from moral rules and moral principles. They argue that it is not enough to teach rules and principles about right and wrong; we need to nurture the kind of character and virtues that lead people actually to do the right and avoid the wrong.” (Gushee & Stassen, Christian Ethics, p. 21)
Agree? Or disagree? I don’t know about you, but I grew up learning what was right and wrong:
It is right to treat others kindly; it is wrong to steal or lie.
It is right to obey your parents; it is wrong to break curfew.
It is right to share my crayons; it is wrong to keep them to myself.
And then, on a grander scale as I grew older:
It is right to value life; it is wrong to have an abortion.
It is right to value marriage; it is wrong to get divorced.
It is right to have a good reputation; it is wrong to party and get drunk.
All of these stemmed from my Christian upbringing.
Granted, many of these values can also be found in other religions or belief systems (think: strong marriage values in LDS or Hinduism). On my baptism at sixteen years old, I vividly remember stating, “My parents taught me right from wrong.” They did. I firmly knew what was right and I most definitely knew what was wrong.
A problem arose when I went to university. There were suddenly more views on what is “right” and what is “wrong.” A profound awkwardness arose when someone casually partook in an activity that I viewed to be “wrong” (for example, drinking an alcoholic beverage). I was confused. Who was really right?
Black-and-white ethical thinking is common in our world. Upon reaching a dilemma, we frantically ask our friends and family, “What should I do?” What we are really asking is, “What is the right thing to do?” This is called deontological reasoning, which refers to our duty as moral human beings. It seeks to establish that which is inherently “right” and “wrong.” This is a form of decisionism, or quandary ethics, in which we seek a clear, concise answer to our moral dilemmas. This type of decisionist reasoning also falls somewhat under the category of universal ethics, which refers to the moral laws or principles that apply to everyone in all places at all times.
For example, the statement, “It is always wrong to kill another human being,” is a universal statement. Let’s add another layer onto this situation. One might say, “Yes, I agree with this statement, but what if the killing occurs in war?” Deontological reasoning would say that killing is always wrong, regardless of the situation (including war). At this point, you may agree or you may disagree with this statement. If you disagree that killing in war is wrong (because sometimes wars need to be fought), then suddenly the above statement that it is always wrong to kill is no longer true. Ethics becomes grey, not black-and-white.
We see an awful lot of grey in our world. “Killing is always wrong, except in capital punishment, abortion, war, euthanasia, or self-defense.” Right. Okay. That’s perfectly clear.
Or, “It is always wrong to lie… except in self-protection or in protection of others, or when exaggerating to make a point, or in court to win your lawsuit, or…” Well now it’s just getting ridiculous. Is there right or wrong, or not?
The problem with decisionist thinking is that it began out of the Enlightenment as “a rational justification for morality that is independent of any particular convictions, especially theological convictions.” (Wilson, Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World, p. 39) What does that mean? Essentially, the great thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to provide a framework of morality for humanity that did not center itself around God or faith. Actually, they sought justification for a morality free of any convictions or belief systems. As we can see, that hasn’t worked out for our world all that well.
Back to the introductory quote: Christian ethicists are making an argument for the relevance of virtue and character as grounding points for Christian ethics. Rather than asking, “What should I do?”, we should be asking, “Who should I be?” So it is not as easy as saying, “X is right and Y is wrong.” That sort of morality has proven confusing and stressful. Instead, Christian ethics is a way of life that stems forth from the character and virtue of Jesus himself: a life of kindness, humility, sincere repentance, peacemaking, justice, compassion, faithfulness, integrity, and endurance.
This search for an ethic of virtue actually stems all the way back from Aristotle and was the predominant way of thinking for nearly two thousand years until the Enlightenment started in the 17th century. Which means that our modern black-and-white, right-and-wrong, deontological, decisionist, universal way of thinking is relatively new in our world’s history. Perhaps we ought to take a page from our more ancient history. Or, more accurately, perhaps we ought to take that page directly from the character and virtue of Jesus, God in human form, if we profess to hold to a Christian ethic.
