March 2021
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Month March 2021

Entries 4 Total

The Ethics of Civil Disobedience

Mar 17, 21 4:38 PM

Civil disobedience is generally inspired by principled convictions and meant to call attention to a society about unjust matters for the purpose of introducing social changes. As part of a Christian ethic, understanding when civil disobedience is permissible, how to protest and do so without alienating those we are trying to reach is a key understanding for this issue. This issue is important for believers under both free and tyrannical governments.

Here in the U.S., Americans have a long history of civil disobedience beginning with the American Revolution followed by the Civil War over slavery and in the last century, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the protest against nuclear arms, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement. Interestingly, even our declaration of Independence also professes a conviction of using just revolutions against tyrannical governments.

However, Scripture takes a different stance on civil disobedience. The apostles Peter and Paul teach from 1 Peter 2:13-14 and in Romans 13:1-5 respectively, that every believer must submit to the governing authorities and that to be rebellious towards a governing authority was to be rebellious against the very God who established every human state authority.

While there is no exhaustive treatment on the issue, the Bible distinctly shows the criteria in which civil disobedience is allowed. It also shows clear precedents for when and how civil disobedience is to be exercised.

Geisler comments that the patterns we see from Scripture shows that disobedience is done by refusal and not rebellion. Civil disobedience is to be a non-violent resistance and does not refuse discipline by the government. It is not to be a violent rebellion rejecting punishment. Resistance without rebellion should involve a spiritual, moral and political campaign against in-just governments and need not be a passive acceptance. However, Francis Schaeffer takes a slightly different stance from Geisler in justifying armed revolution under limited circumstances.

In Lex Rex [author Samuel Rutherford] does not propose armed revolution as an automatic solution. Instead, he sets forth the appropriate response to interferency by the state in the liberties of the citizenry. Specifically, he stated that if the state deliberately is committed to destroying its ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.
In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of regress.

Schaeffer, Francis A. 1981. A Christian Manifesto. rev. ed. Westchester, Il: Crossway.

The big question about civil disobedience is whether resistance by force is ever justified. The key phrase in Schaeffer’s justification is “if the state deliberately is committed to destroying it’s ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.” This is where Schaeffer seems to differ from Geisler, Therefore, in this one most extreme circumstance of the state abandoning it’s commitment to God is Schaeffer’s position agreeable.

Scripture does give basic guidelines which clearly command obeying civil authorities and also reports on civil disobedience. The Egyptian midwives Shiphrah and Puah refused Pharaoh to kill all male Israelite babies, Exod. 1:15-21. Rahab hid the Jewish spies opposing the king of Jericho, Josh. 2:1-14. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused by command of Nebuchadnezzar to bow before his golden image, Dan. 3. In the same book, Daniel refused the edict not to pray to God by King Darius or else face the lions den. In all of these examples, each feared God more than their governments. We are to obey the authorities over us so long as we are not required to do anything that contradicts God.

Davis makes the case from Scripture that there is biblical rationale for revolutionary action against governments, though these circumstances are extremely limited. Interestingly, he asks a key question when stating that the people of God are to be “subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). His question, “Who is the legitimate authority in the sight of God?”

When the call of God came to Gideon (Judg. 6), Gideon, rather than the Midianite rulers, became the legitimate authority for the people of Israel, and Gideon was called of God to forcibly overthrow the existing order. Although the example of the judges is taken from the history of theocratic Israel, the principle never-theless is valid: God sometimes wills the overthrow of existing authority; he even calls his own people to be the instruments of that purpose.

Davis, John Jefferson. 2015. Evangelical Ethics, Issues facing the church today: Zondervan Publishing House. Pg. 230.

Clearly, God may accomplish His purposes through the use of human instruments.

As citizens of a nation, specifically here in the U.S., we have a civil duty to take part in the election process and share in civic forms of government. As Kaiser states:

Nowhere does the Bible teach isolationism from all forms of the nation-state. Therefore, to take just one or two examples of non-involvement, a decision not to vote in any local or national elections or not to participate in any civic forms of government would be contrary to our calling as Christians and our calling as citizens in a local setting.

Kaiser, Walter C. 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 173.

By taking part in positions of government, we as Christians are able to provide better moral examples and leadership to a nation that is morally bankrupt. Without Christian ethics, this nation will not be able to stand and civil disobedience will occur as it has in the past. If and when this time comes, we will have no choice but to make decisions about whether it is duly constituted to disobey the authorities.

Not all Christians have the same views or the same forms of government. It is likely that this latitude is to a small degree and does not mean we may do as we would like. Scripture never condones anarchy. Perhaps the greatest Scriptural verse in the New Testament concerning this matter is that of Peter and John being summoned before the Sanhedrin for teaching the people from Acts 4:19-20.

But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.

New English Translation, Acts 4:19-20.
Comments Off on The Ethics of Civil Disobedience

The Ethics of Animal Rights

Mar 13, 21 9:25 PM

Before the last 50 years, the majority of people have believed that mankind is greater than the animals because of the ability to discern what is right and wrong. However, in the last four decades equality between man and animals has seen a large increase in support to the point where advocates of these views would even have animals join into a moral community. These groups assert that factory farming, medical research and other practices should be legally banned. There are many laws around the world that protect animals from cruelty. Yet, Christianity also makes a claim for the ethics of animal rights.

The conventional view of animal rights in Western culture is similar to that of the Greeks which holds that humans are rational creatures and therefore unique. It wasn’t until the sixteenth century when Machiavelli and Montaigne refuted the unique rationality of men and a materialistic view started to emerge. In the nineteenth century, Darwin provided a scientific basis with which this view could further progress. Based on Darwin’s work, animal rights advocates of today hold to many positions which usually protect animals from being used in any way and would have an animals rights to be equal to that of man.

The Biblical view is that God created the Earth and all living things in it, which includes the animals. He has placed them under the authority and responsibility of man in a role of stewardship over the Earth and established a covenant with every living creature. The Bible does show that God is merciful and cares for animals as well. However, because God disapproves of sin, He approved of animal sacrifices for the atonement of men since they both share a life blood. It is important to note that, as Geisler explains, Christians are widely divided on this view for reasons of philosophical presuppositions and the choice of a hermeneutical methodology.

Scripture shows that animals do not have rights like those of man. They are not to be protected above that of human life as they are not valued to the degree that man is by God. Man and animal are very different creatures where, man is made in the image of God, and an animal is not. Man has been given dominion over animals and though animals are given to man as food, we are to treat the life of animals kindly, properly, and responsibly. The Biblical guiding principle is stewardship.

Mankind has stewardship over God’s creation and was meant to care for everything in it. This includes all animal life which is to be respected and valued. God has given people the right to use animals for survival with the responsibility of exercising this privilege in both a humane and sustainable manner.

As to the value of animals, we find that they were never placed in charge of creation, nor are they responsible to God in maintaining the created order. They were not created for this purpose and do not carry the image of God from within. In Genesis 1:26, God states that we are stewards of the land and the animals:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

New English Translation, Genesis 1:26.

And again in Psalms 8:5-8:

Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them, and make them a little less than the heavenly beings? You grant mankind honor and majesty; you appoint them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority, including all the sheep and cattle, as well as the wild animals, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea and everything that moves through the currents of the seas.

New English Translation, Psalm 8:5-8.

In Genesis 2:19-20, Adam demonstrated the authority that God had given him by naming them and in Matthew 6:26, Jesus clearly states the value of man over the animals as well as their importance to Him:

Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you more valuable than they are?

New English Translation, Matthew 6:26.

It is not because of our rights that we are to be good stewards of animals, rather, it is that God has entrusted us with this responsibility, to care for what is His. Proverbs 27:23 states:

Pay careful attention to the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds,

New English Translation, Proverbs 27:23.

In Genesis 9:3, we find that God has given animals to us for food and in Genesis 9:9-10, God establishes His covenant with every living creature on Earth:

“Look! I now confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that is with you, including the birds, the domestic animals, and every living creature of the earth with you, all those that came out of the ark with you – every living creature of the earth.

New English Translation, Genesis 9:9-10.

These verses show the importance of all living creatures to God.

There are several implications to these non-Christian views which make an animals right equal to that of man. Even many Christians state that man should be vegetarians or vegans and some extend this view even further and believe animals have souls and should be included into the covenant of grace. Supporters of animal rights do not purchase items made of leather, nor would they allow people to hunt, be placed in zoos, be used in events of entertainment such as bullfighting or in a circus and allow for them to be used in medical experiments.

The truth is that from a Christian perspective, man has dominion over animals in a role of responsibility, that life is sacred and therefore belongs to God which includes animal life as well. We are obligated in our role to practice good stewardship over animals and creation. Kaiser sums up the situation with the following:

Scripture does call for a kind and generous care of the animal world, but the full healing of the created realm is not promised until the time when the Messiah returns. This is no more a loophole that allows for outrageous maltreatment of animals than the dominion of humans over the earth is an excuse for abuse of the environment. Balanced thinking and acting is required in any case.

Kaiser, Walter C., 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 219.

He continues on that in this environment after the fall where things are out of order, that we as Christians have this hope for the animals:

We wait for our Lord to fix what the fall badly damaged, without using it as an excuse for abuse of the created order or of animals.

Kaiser, Walter C., 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 219.

A Christian view where the animal world is treated in a kind and generous manner, responsibly by man results in a consistent and coherent position which therefore allows for the better treatment of animals and their purpose as given by God.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Animal Rights

The Ethics of Capital Punishment

Mar 10, 21 10:19 PM

Interestingly, capital punishment is one issue where religious believers make some of the most ardent and passionate arguments from either side of the debate. It was in 1972 that brought a landmark judgement where the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty of two states violated the Eight Amendment based on the fact that there was no clear standard used to punish those selected for the death penalty.

In this day, capital punishment is still practiced in African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. And while many other countries still have capital punishment as law, there are those that have not used it for many years and yet others that will apply it to crimes other than murder. The majority of countries in Europe have disallowed it, yet, the U.S. is still one of the few developed countries that still uses capital punishment in it’s system of law. Until 1972, every state allowed the death penalty, from which now only thirty-one states employ the penalty while another nineteen have prohibited it. There have been three significant cases, all brought forward in Georgia to the U.S. Supreme Court starting in 1972 and since then support continues to decline. According to Feinberg, in 2005, only sixty-four percent of the American public now support the sentence.

The main form of punishment for Western countries is imprisonment. During incarceration, the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment, the proportion of the punishment with the crime and from punishment without due process of law.

Retentionists are those that favor the death penalty, though they are more likely to not agree to the particular circumstances of their arguments or the position that they hold, they do often point out support from the Old Testament. Abolitionist, who although may disagree with some of their own arguments, they will always agree that the death penalty is morally unjustified and often allude to the New Testament. The issue at hand, whether Retentionist, Abolishinist, or somewhere’s in between, is the disagreement which stems from the primary goal of retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation. The biblical view of man’s nature is “total depravity”, and therefore, a deterrent is necessary for people to obey the law.

Feinberg states that capital punishment involves several key issues, and therefore, asks the following questions. 1) Is capital punishment permissible, 2) is capital punishment mandatory, 3) if permissible and/or mandatory, then which crimes are punishable, and 4) if punishable, what methods are to be used?

Capital punishment is permissible and mandatory in cases of premeditated murder. However, the number of crimes punishable are very limited and laws for convicting a person for a capital crime should be very rigorous and many legislative revisions are needed before applying such a sentence. Both law and punishment should reflect morality and the breaking of the moral law is punishable resulting in the practice of retributive justice by the state.

Although there is legitimate debate on this issue, the problem comes from a lack of wisdom by the public as well as those in government. This demand for justice is God’s alone and while we are to have compassion for all those involved, God has always taught that we will be judged by our deeds.

Feinberg shows the consistency of capital punishment as being a pro-life ethic on at least three grounds:

… a sanctity-of-life ethic, a demand to treat all persons justly, and a commitment to non-consequentialist ethics. Given a sanctity-of-life ethic, human life is sacred and must be protected. Hence, abortion and euthanasia are ruled out. Execution of murderers underscores the sanctity of life and the seriousness of taking the innocent life of others. As to justice, the unborn, the aged, and the infirm have done nothing deserving of death. The convicted murderer has. Justice demands rejecting abortion and euthanasia and executing murderers. Finally, on a non-consequentialist theory of ethics such as ours, God prescribes the protection of the innocent and the punishment of those who take innocent life. If one follows those divine commands, he must reject abortion and euthanasia and favor capital punishment.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

At the heart of the issue in capital punishment is justice where penal and judicial systems play the central role in it’s distribution. The latter requires that we understand that we are not morally responsible for an act unless we are free to do the act. Therefore, retribution cannot be unjust if the criminal freely committed the crime. Romans 13:1-7 gives authority to these state systems to discipline those in a non-vengeful way who break the law. Retribution is meant for the unjust and is very different from vengeance which God is clearly opposed to. Since upholding justice is the purpose of the state, retribution must be used.

Feinberg argues from Rev. 20:11-15 that no one would suffer eternal punishment for rejecting Christ if God Himself did not use retribution. As is apparent, Feinberg’s view that abortion and euthanasia are not contradictory to capital punishment rely on the accuracy of exegetical biblical interpretation.

Genesis 9:6 confirms the sanctity of life with respect to the death penalty:

Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.

New English Translation, Genesis 9:6

This command was given before the Mosaic law. The truth of this principle is that man and woman were created in the image of God. Rae makes a statement in support of this position:

The life-for-life principle and its link to the image of God in human beings seems to support the notion that murder and the consequence for murder — taking the murderer’s life — are not morally the same thing.

Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices, An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic.

The case for retributive justice is based on a systematic theology where God’s command reveals which acts are prohibited and can be punished.

There are many abuses to capital punishment today which require more exacting measures governing convicted cases. Feinberg gives statistics showing that this practice is disproportionately unfair against minorities and the poor as they will likely have inferior legal council. As taught in Scripture, there was a high degree of certainty about the guilt of someone accused by requiring two eyewitnesses to prevent a person from receiving the death penalty as opposed to circumstantial evidence alone. This is stronger than newer technologies which can be falsified. Even witnesses can falsely testify which is why perjury in a capital case is also a capital crime. The degree to the amount of certainty required by biblical standards exceeds that of the “reasonable doubt” standard used in our legal system here in the U.S. As humans, we do make errors, and both sides of this debate agree that individuals that did not commit the crime have received the death penalty.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Capital Punishment

The Ethics of Abortion

Mar 8, 21 10:36 PM

Abortion is one of the most challenged and debated moral issues of our time and more so in the U.S. than in any other country around the world. The advancements in biotechnology have exponentially made the issues more complex and more explosive with the introduction of bioethics in the 1960’s by Catholic and Protestant scholars as they contend with these new technologies. Generally, there are four aspects at the heart of abortion. These include the legal background, the biblical and theological contribution, abortion rights and the problems with personhood.

In Western culture, abortion laws have generally followed the U.S. courts’ position on abortion and globally as well with few exceptions. In 1973 the landmark case of Roe v. Wade took place where Texas courts ruled that abortion was prohibited except to save the mothers life. The result was that the court divided the pregnancy into three trimesters in which the state holds a distinct interest. During the first trimester, the woman has the right to an abortion. In the second, the state may regulate in ways that are reasonably related to the mother. The final trimester the state may regulate and prohibit the abortion. However, Roe v. Wade has been significantly broadened by the Doe v. Bolton case which makes abortion on demand available at almost any point in a woman’s pregnancy. Feinberg points out the results of these decisions:

Even more revealing and troubling are statistics on why U.S. women are actually having abortions. The CBER, whose statistics are derived from the AGI and Planned Parenthood’s \textit{Family Planning Perspectives}, reports that only 1 percent of all U.S. abortions occur because of rape or incest. Six percent of abortions are performed because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. In contrast, “93\% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

Scripture takes an opposite stance on abortion by answering the question at the heart of the debate, personhood as it relates to the fetus. Many passages are found that clearly represent a continuity of personal identity from the earliest stages of a pregnancy all the way into adulthood. Jeremiah 1:5 is one of the strongest biblical passages using conception and birth interchangeably; however, it is in Psalms 139:13-16 where the most pertinent statement is made in God’s involvement of the unborn:

Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.

Scripture, God’s direct revelation to humanity, is the guiding source for taking a right pro-life position. This decision states that elective abortions, sex selection, pills such as RU-486, sexual encounters, rape, incest, fetal tissues and a majority of reproductive technologies are all amoral according to God’s Word. While hard cases do exist, it is above ninety-eight percent of all abortions where the mother always has options available which do not need to result in the termination of human life and where other solutions should be sought for the well-being of both fetus and mother.

In a pro-life position, the status of the unborn is fully human, the basis for this position is sanctity of life, and the mothers rights prioritize life over privacy. Geisler summarizes this position as follows:

The abortion debate focuses the whole issue of the sanctity of human life. Both Scripture and science support the view that an individual human life begins at conception, and both special and general revelation declare that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life. Furthermore, the same arguments used to justify abortion may also be used to justify infanticide and euthanasia. These reasons all violate the sanctity of human life.

Geisler, Norman L. 2010. Christian Ethics, Contemporary Issues & Options. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.

We must not forget that the decision not to practice sexual abstinence in the first place is a sin which leads to the choice of an abortion, a practice that is almost unheard of in today’s culture.

Justification for this ethical position originated from the Ten Commandments and it is in the sixth commandment where the bible resoundingly defends innocent life:

Thou shall not murder.

The act of murder is defined as the taking of a human life. Therefore, this requires that the fetus be identified with personhood. Perhaps one of the most clearly stated verses where the continuity of personal identify, between conception and birth, is found in Jeremiah 1:5:

Before I formed you in your mother’s womb I chose you. Before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations.

God gives the same characteristics to the unborn as to those outside of the womb, and in doing so, demonstrates a constancy of personal identity when describing the unborn. Therefore, the unborn does have personhood, is a person from conception and God protects innocent life by this command.

This position also contends that a persons rights over ones own body are not absolute. The pro-choice position is born out of selfishness. Rae states the recent change of position by pointing out:

Historically in Western society, when life and freedom (choice) have been in conflict, life always has taken precedence. Only if the fetus is not a person does a woman have a right to make a choice that would result in its death.

Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices, An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic.

The pro-choice position is also a position that is supported logically. Scripture states that humans are made in the image of God and based on this, Feinberg sees the qualifications of personhood as part of an overall argument from logic:

That argument has three steps that lead to a conclusion, and we need to make the case for each step to show that the conclusion not only follows from the premises but is likely true. The argument is as follows:
1. If x is an embryo made from human sperm and a human egg, then x is a human being.
2. If x is a human being, then x is (is made in) the image of God.
3. If x is (is made in) the image of God, x is a human person.
4. If x is a human being, x is a human person (from 1 – 3).

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

Because of this continuity of personal identity, this shows a rational and sensible thought process exercised by God in which he has deemed right and good for humanity. The position of never taking a human life from conception, through birth and into adulthood also shows coherent support. The consistency of protecting human life only gains support as it is extended beyond the issue of abortion and into all other areas of life.

There is no valid reason to terminate the life of a human. The implications to date have been colossally tragic for our culture, the loss of billions of unborn since the practice began, to the point of being defined as infanticide for many countries to include the US.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Abortion