John Frame in his book “The Doctrine of the Christian Life” gives his opinion as to why studying Christian ethics is important.
“People are far more open to discussing ethics than to discussing theistic proofs or even “transcendental arguments.” Philosophy does not excite many people today, and many do not even want to hear personal testimony and the simple gospel. But they do care about right and wrong. Christians who can talk about ethics in a cogent way, therefore, have a great apologetic and evangelistic advantage.” (page 5)
Later he presents his reasons for the inclusion of Christian ethics in the secular realm.
“I shall argue as well that all ethics is religious, even when it tries hard to be secular. In the end, all ethics presupposes ultimate values. It requires allegiance to someone or something that demands devotion and governs all thinking. That kind of allegiance is indistinguishable from religious devotion, even if it doesn’t involve liturgical practices. So the line between religious and secular ethics is a fuzzy one, and it is arbitrary to use such a line to determine who is entitled to join a dialogue on ethics.” (page 5-6)
What do you think of Frame’s position? Do you agree that Christian ethics should be allowed a place in the overall discussion of ethics? I agree with Frame but also have my doubts as to how receptive many people would actually to these ideas.
the archives near Emmaus 
@Josh: It is funny because it seems to me that receptivity usually depends on the subject and the person. If we discuss human trafficking there are very few people who would divide over religious lines. If we are discussing abortion there is much division along religious lines. My assumption is that people have certain values, but there is little reflecting on from where those values rise and why they exist.
Human trafficking is wrong for most anyone because humans have values. For Christians this is based in our doctrine of imago Dei. Most secularist believe humans have innate value, but I often struggle with their reason for believing this. If humans are more or less superior animals, why don’t we get as upset about people trading cattle as we do humans (of course, some ethicist like Peter Singer do)?
Abortion, on the other hand, is a tad more difficult. Most to not affirm abortion out of the lack of human value, but rather their scientific vision of the meaning of being an embryo. Christians see the humanity in the embryo, for the most part, and we see it as the creative work of God, so we have religious motivations. We may argue that our society has religious motivations as well: The American Dream.
I assume Frame does this, but I think the missing key is getting down to the foundation of one’s ethics. Many who hate human trafficking don’t mind abortion. Why? Likewise, many Christians hate abortion but support war. Why? For both there is a lot of gut feeling and not a lot of thinking.
Well, I think studying Christian Ethics is certainly important and that for all Christians, not just pastors – as ethical issues always come up and many need to be ready to discuss/engage it (and I think it’s probably a good idea to take a position now before the issue comes up so you can walk though it in a level headed way – i.e., divorce, death and dying, birth issues, the work place, etc). As to the acceptance of Christian Ethics in secular society – well, of course it won’t always be accepted but still what better way to be a voice for the Lord?
I like John Frame! He is a full Christian thinker/theolog. Yes, to Christian ethics, but always best within the element of the Church and belief.
Frame’s assertion that ethics flows from some sort of objective value is pretty standard in what I’ve read. I agree that Christian ethics should be given a voice, but I also understand that, according to our postmodern culture, the only thing not allowed in public discussion is Christian values.
Amen there Mike, we can only do Christian ethics in a soteriological place, and that is the Church!
I don’t see Christian ethics as operating only within the church, but by the church in the world… we do have “let our light shine” after all. In my original post I meant that I see enmity in the secular marketplace against Christian ethics specifically.
Mike: My point was theological. The Church is always the guardian, theology, ethics, and the Christian life must come from out of the Mystical Body of Christ! We never get our marching orders from the world!
Fr. Robert – Agreed. I’ve found my mind consumed with the Christian (read: biblical) answer to a lot of issues over the past month. As a soon-to-be pastor, these are things I need to have thought through/continue to think through.
@ brian – i have many questions and i have not read all the philosophy of ethics. in my present place i do not know if i belong in this conversation but this is highly curious to me. where is this “place”, i am curious to know if it is a confined circle? would the purpose of opening the circle be to proselytize?
“ur brother” is me, unsure as to why it is there?
I think Frame is right here in terms of the possibility of an ethics as apologetic but it’s going to need some exegetical theological legwork. One glaring problem: A straightforward reading of the New Testament gives an unequivocal defense of the institution of slavery. I find it hard to believe this would be construed as an example of speaking about ethics in a cogent way.
First of all, sorry for my slow responses. I had my first seminary class last night so by the time class was dismissed I had forgotten that I had not posted. I’m a slacker!
@Brian: I agree that most people will respond to aspects of Christian ethics differently. I would hope that through practicing solid godly ethics we may make inroads in those aspects that people might not agree with.
One of the things I appreciate about Frame’s book is that he is seeking to remove the gut-feeling of ethics by providing a solid biblical reasoning for our Ethics.
@Brianfulthorp: I agree! It is so important to take a position before you are thrown into the middle of having to make the decision. I wish more Christians would be able to spend time studying ethics. The Church would benefit greatly from it.
@Fr.Robert: I agree that Christian Ethics are best when combined with the Church and belief. God must be the center of our ethics. I also like what I have read of Frame (just the first part of this book) 🙂
@Juven: In response to your question here and on Facebook, let me say a few things: (1) We must be aware of the fact that there are some moral issues that are (a) personal (e.g. If I have had an addiction to alcohol, it may be wrong for me to consume it. For someone who can maintain moderation, there is no wrong.); (b) ecclesiastical (e.g. If a man is having an affair with another man’s wife, we cannot throw them in jail, but we toss them from our local church as a means of correction.); (c) social (e.g. Human trafficking is something I think both Christians and non-Christians will find evil.).
It is not always easy to know when something is to be found under A, B, or C. We must think hard on this matter. But what we cannot do is say, “Well, I believe this because my religious convictions inform it, therefore I must privatize my beliefs because I know this atheist or that Buddhist do not share my paradigm.”
There is a reason why homosexual marriage and abortion are two of the most fought over issues in society. It is very, very difficult to know where condemnation of such actions crosses from B to C. There are many Christians wrestling with this, and I know the answers are not easy, which is why there must be a lot of grace involved.
But to reemphasize my point: We cannot pull our beliefs from the public square simply because they are grounded in religious persuasion. Other people do the same thing and we live in this world together, so we must think hard on what ought to be mandated of everyone, of our religious community only, and of ourselves only. No easy answers.
@Dan: I’d disagree with your statement on slavery. It is much, much more nuanced than that. You are correct that the New Testament writings do not have a statement that outright condones the institution of slavery, but you are wrong to see them as being in support of it as if it was something they saw as good.
In Paul’s so-called “household codes” he tells slaves to obey their masters, yes. He also reminds masters that they have a MASTER in heaven. I don’t know if this move by Paul was missed in your reading, but it does not approve of the status quo. Or let us read his letter to Philemon. If you don’t see Paul’s wisdom in handling that situation in a society like the Roman Empire, where outright support of an attempt to overthrow slavery is essentially treason, then I think your reading is a bit too 2D.
@Josh: How was your first day of seminary?!
A while ago i came to the conclusion that ethics was important and it needs to be taught within churches. I came to realize during the run up to the Iraq war. Of late i have realized that ethics needs to be defined within the framework of the Biblical story. Apart from that there can be no solid ethics. I agree with John Frame that we need something that “requires allegiance to someone or something that demands devotion and governs all thinking” If we do not do that, we end up with some rationalistic timeless truths. I think we can take our allegiances (Jesus) to the public square, even though people may writes us off, after all as Christians we are called to be light of the allegiance (Jesus) not light of some moral values.
@ brian – thank u for ur response, i was worried my question would be disregarded.
after rereading this thread, and rereading the question and placing it in the backdrop of our world today, i agree with the thought that any ethics requires allegiance or loyalty to a higher power and it is a shame that christian ethics is frowned upon in discussion. i have a sour taste myself, with “christianity” at this point in my journey. however, it seems to me, that one talking about ethics and denying there tie to “god” is a lack of understanding.
ethics to me at this point seem to be an implied universal understanding which is a misunderstanding because of our current point in civilization, not all men have the same views to ethics. and the concepts of right and wrong seem to me inherent to man, thus making men there own judges. with retrospect to the introduction of ‘god’ to secular types and unknowing types a lot of education will be necessary! and with educating comes responsibility to the educator. how can one be assured of anything in our fallity? if the answer is yes to the question of introduction, how far does that go? i am wary of religion and politics…
thank u brian for ur blogs! i am learning much from them!!
@Juven: You’re welcome. One thing about the “Christians in politics” discussion that should be magnified is gracefulness. We lack it. We all have option and voices, but few have ears. I am guilty of this as well.
I think gracefulness will arise from a realization that the subject is complex. When we realize in our own search that finding the answer is not easy, we will be less likely to judge other who differ with us. That doesn’t mean we skip the debate. It means we debate from a humble posture. This is difficult!
“In Paul’s so-called “household codes” he tells slaves to obey their masters, yes. He also reminds masters that they have a MASTER in heaven. I don’t know if this move by Paul was missed in your reading, but it does not approve of the status quo. Or let us read his letter to Philemon. If you don’t see Paul’s wisdom in handling that situation in a society like the Roman Empire, where outright support of an attempt to overthrow slavery is essentially treason, then I think your reading is a bit too 2D.”
Brian,
Paul certainly approved of the status quo, he approved of the institution of slavery. He had a problem with the treatment of slaves, yes, but also had issues with the behavior of slaves themselves. What we don’t see is any questioning of the institution itself. Christian communities held this position for well over a thousand years, well after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christendom. They maintained the institution because they had a theology, a theology shaped by Paul, that saw slavery as legitimate.
Paul is not a secret abolitionist keeping it his opposition on the down-low because of fear of Roman reprisals. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. I can’t think of a single abolitionist Christian before 1500 A.D.
It’s important to be able to deal with these issues if you’re going to make an apologetic argument using Christian ethics. What does it say about the ultimate values of this ethical system? The legacy from Paul to Whitefield would and should give an unbeliever pause. There are ways around this problem but I’m not sure Frame would be comfortable with those arguments.
@Dan: You are making the mistake of judging the Apostle by your own modern standards (which I assume fail being that slavery is worse now than any time in human history, but what have you done today to stop it?), rather than by the standards of a first century Jewish Roman citizen. He did not have any power to overthrow slavery and it would be absurd to anachronistically expect that of him. We must ask what he did in his context.
In his context he reminded masters of their Master, i.e. if you abuse slaves you will be judged by your Master. If he would have demanded every slave be set free there is no guarantee this would have been good for anyone, even if possible. What would the slaves have done in order to reintegrate, in mass, into society? By humanizing slaves, as Paul did, he made any master who listened to his message well aware of the need to treat these slaves with respect and dignity.
In his context, when he did have the influence, we see from his Letter to Philemon that he did undermine slavery. Of course, he did it one person at a time where he could do it. But let us examine the principles upon which he nudged Philemon to release Onesimus. He did not demand it of him (though he indicated he had the right to do so), because as we know from many religious contexts, such force rarely results in actual, lasting change. He based his argument for Onesimus’ release on deep theological principles of being family in Christ. He started with a positive, rather than trying to slam Philemon over the head.
Why? Because the goal was Onesimus’ freedom, not a pat on his own back so that he could say, “Well, I really stood up to the evil of slavery, didn’t I.” We forget what little power Paul actually had. If the best he could do was try to help slaves keep their eyes toward heaven, than in his context this is what Paul did to fight slavery.
If Paul was pro-slavery we would not see his (a) warnings toward masters; (b) encouragement of slaves; (c) cryptic remarks like “there is neither slave nor free” in the body of Christ; and (d) his wise approach to the situation with Philemon.
Furthermore, we have no idea what else Paul did in various case-by-case situations to help other slaves. Your broad brush stroke assumes too much and it ignores the steps Paul made. I have no doubt that if Paul was a voting citizen in a democracy, where statements against slavery didn’t equate to possible further mistreatment of slaves, as well as one’s own charge of treason, he would have outshone the two of us.
“You are making the mistake of judging the Apostle by your own modern standards (which I assume fail being that slavery is worse now than any time in human history, but what have you done today to stop it?), rather than by the standards of a first century Jewish Roman citizen. He did not have any power to overthrow slavery and it would be absurd to anachronistically expect that of him. We must ask what he did in his context.”
Brian,
There are persons in the ancient world who argued for the abolition of slavery, such as the Manichaeans who were condemned at the Synod of Gangra (A decision was reaffirmed at Chalcedon). Alcidamas managed to do it three hundred years prior to Paul. I’m not sure how you read 1 Tim. 6.1 without seeing that evidently some Christians disagreed with Paul on this matter and that he was eager that the impression was given that Christianity was not opposed to slavery. We can judge by contemporaries, contemporaries that were likewise powerless to end the institution but spoke truth to power in their powerlessness none the less. I could use my own modern standards as well. I don’t quite see why ethical statements would be historically contingent. And I’m not sure how an ethical stance can be judged based on the presence of an ethical problem in the world (This would seem to be the point of developing a position, no?). I mean, it makes little sense to tell a vegitarian, “Your standards fail, more animals are being eaten then ever before!”
Also,
“If Paul was pro-slavery we would not see his (a) warnings toward masters; (b) encouragement of slaves; (c) cryptic remarks like “there is neither slave nor free” in the body of Christ; and (d) his wise approach to the situation with Philemon.”
All of these things could be said about George Whitefield (With the exception of the specific incidence of Philemon). Was George Whitefield pro-slavery? Every problem you have mentioned and every argument that you have made could have just as easily been made in opposition to the abolitionist movement in this country. I’d take John Woolman over George Whitefield any day!
Why can’t Paul simply be mistaken?
@Dan: Again, in the Apostle’s world it seems very apparent to me that he did well. He wisely approached the situation. You are looking through a very narrow tunnel where the black-and-white approach to slavery in the Roman Empire is either that of the abolitionist or that of those who supported slavery. Paul wrote through pastoral eyes seeking to care for those Christians with whom he made contact in ways he could see actually benefiting them.
What should Paul have done? Should an apostle of a small Messianic movement spend his days fighting for abolition? Should he have done so in light of his awareness that the Parousia could occur (even the signs that he notes in his correspondence to the Thessalonians could unfold very quickly)? Or should he have tried to give Christian slaves hope and Christian masters a conscience?
If Paul saw no hope of slaves being set free in his time his advice to obey their masters is not pro-slavery…it is for their survival. He knew they could redeem the evil with a powerful Christian witness just like he did as a prisoner on many occasions. If you think he was wrong, well then, you think he was wrong. I maintain your viewing this from a very 2D, black-and-white, vantage point that does not take into consideration (1) who Paul was and (2) what he was trying to do (and what he could do).
Furthermore, I should add, the language you use of him presupposes that he was part of the cultural elite who sat around on their hands maintaining the status quo. Paul didn’t ask anything of his brothers and sisters who were slaves that he did not ask of himself.
Brian,
Thanks for the dialogue on this!
“Again, in the Apostle’s world it seems very apparent to me that he did well. He wisely approached the situation.”
Did Paul approach the situation in the worst possible way? No. That doesn’t make his response one that is a an example of a discussing the ethics of the situation in a cogent way (To paraphrase Frame).
“You are looking through a very narrow tunnel where the black-and-white approach to slavery in the Roman Empire is either that of the abolitionist or that of those who supported slavery. Paul wrote through pastoral eyes seeking to care for those Christians with whom he made contact in ways he could see actually benefiting them.”
I’m not demanding that Paul should have went full on John Brown. What I’m seeing is a cultural practice that is is deeply troubling ethically. A cultural practice that Paul witnessed and wrote about that he didn’t find troubling. A practice that others during the period did find troubling and did speak out against (Again 1 Tim. 6). Paul spoke out against this questioning and argued for the status quo.
“What should Paul have done? Should an apostle of a small Messianic movement spend his days fighting for abolition? Should he have done so in light of his awareness that the Parousia could occur (even the signs that he notes in his correspondence to the Thessalonians could unfold very quickly)? Or should he have tried to give Christian slaves hope and Christian masters a conscience? ”
It seems Paul could have made a similar move that me made regarding marriage. Celibacy is preferable, but if you can’t swing it, marry. Slavery is wrong, but if you’ve gotta have ’em/be one try to act justly in an unjust system. We don’t see that move though. Paul has threaded the needle concerning ethical ideas and pastoral realities before. He didn’t see a need to here.
“If Paul saw no hope of slaves being set free in his time his advice to obey their masters is not pro-slavery…it is for their survival. He knew they could redeem the evil with a powerful Christian witness just like he did as a prisoner on many occasions. If you think he was wrong, well then, you think he was wrong. I maintain your viewing this from a very 2D, black-and-white, vantage point that does not take into consideration (1) who Paul was and (2) what he was trying to do (and what he could do).”
This is equally true of what Paul speaks of marriage. That doesn’t stop Paul from articulating the ideal there while also acknowledging pastoral reality. I’m troubled more that he didn’t seem to see slavery for what it was, not that he failed to take a particular course of action. It’s simply not on his radar. Just like it wasn’t on the radar of most Christians for over a thousand years. The fact that Christians argued strenuously against and even condemned some for speaking against this injustice is a tragedy. This tragic failing of the church is something that would be a major stumbling block to presenting Christian ethics as an ethical system that addresses contemporary ethical questions in a cogent way. When we try to make excuses for this failing instead of addressing it, we don’t make it an easier sell.
@Dan: That you see him arguing for the status quo is something that I find remarkable. How did he not argue for justice in an unjust system? Are we ignoring his statements toward masters? Are we ignoring the fact that he even addresses slaves (in a world where they were subhuman) and that he works from the reality that there is neither slave nor free?
What would Paul’s alternative have been to those slaves. I don’t think your marriage analogy holds. And how is slavery not on his radar? Again, do we not see his warnings toward masters or his gentle handling of the situation with Philemon?
Your last paragraph seems, to me, to get to the heart of your complaint. You don’t like how Christian used Paul. Neither do I. But I maintain that you are misreading Paul or, at least, you are holding him to a standard that fails to regard the nuances of his context.
Christian Ethics in itself, is thankfully not the redemptive place of God, though Christ was the holy one and the Lamb of God “Himself”. The cross and death of Christ is first an expiation and conciliation; Christ is the “mercy seat” in Himself, the sacrifice by which sin is expiated. Only from here do we begin any ethical life of our own! (1 Peter 2:18-25)
@ Fr. Robert: I agree and I think the Apostle would have begun here as well. That being said, the gospel does have social implication as well and I think that is what Dan is pushing. I agree with him there, but not in his reading of Paul. I think Paul, for his time, wisely worked out the social implications of the gospel at that stage of the history of the church.
Brian,
“That you see him arguing for the status quo is something that I find remarkable. How did he not argue for justice in an unjust system? Are we ignoring his statements toward masters? Are we ignoring the fact that he even addresses slaves (in a world where they were subhuman) and that he works from the reality that there is neither slave nor free?”
I agree that Paul urges both slaves and masters try to act justly in an unjust system. I dispute that he works from a reality that there are neither slaves nor free (Totally). Spiritually yes, in Christ, yes, but in the world, no. Slaves and masters are given different council depending upon their role. These roles are never questioned, the system itself, remains free from challenge.
“What would Paul’s alternative have been to those slaves. I don’t think your marriage analogy holds. And how is slavery not on his radar? Again, do we not see his warnings toward masters or his gentle handling of the situation with Philemon?”
The marriage analogy holds more for masters. He could have urged the freeing of slaves by their masters (Something for which a legal framework existed and was eminently possible), to be as he is, without slaves. Or they could have slaves if giving them up proved to difficult. Questioning of the institution as legitimate is off his radar, pastoral concerns within the institution are, as you have pointed out, not.
“Your last paragraph seems, to me, to get to the heart of your complaint. You don’t like how Christian used Paul. Neither do I. But I maintain that you are misreading Paul or, at least, you are holding him to a standard that fails to regard the nuances of his context.”
I’m not sure they used Paul wrongly though. Lets go back to George Whitefield. He owned slaves and he treated them, by all accounts, very well. His slaves themselves had great affection for him. He even spoke out against masters who treated their slaves brutally. How was Whitefield’s reading of Paul wrong? Is he not the model of what a master should be? Did he do anything wrong?
@Dan: I see Paul doing that very thing in his letter to Philemon. In his public letters, such as Colossians and Ephesians, he is writing for a broader audience. He must be careful how he says things. Again, if he attacks slavery to openly it could reign down more persecution upon the church. He obviously did not mind taking a stone or two for the gospel, but I suspect he wasn’t going to drag whole assemblies into the persecution without good reason.
As regards Whitefield, this is a question about Whitefield, not Paul. We can debate whether or not Whitefield should have gone further in his context realizing the trajectory of Paul’s message. But that is about Whitefield and his time. Not Paul and his time.
Those who defended slavery as an institution, who kidnapped, abused, and sold people using Paul as a defense are to be judged on their own demerits. We are discussing Paul in his time, no?
Brian,
Indeed we must track closely to both the doctrine of God, and even the Judeo-Christian covenant/covenants. Here I think the ethics of the very early Christians is useful. But, with Constantine’s so-called conversion, the Roman Empire certainly changed. Note, Leithart’s new book on Constantine.
“I see Paul doing that very thing in his letter to Philemon. In his public letters, such as Colossians and Ephesians, he is writing for a broader audience. He must be careful how he says things. Again, if he attacks slavery to openly it could reign down more persecution upon the church. He obviously did not mind taking a stone or two for the gospel, but I suspect he wasn’t going to drag whole assemblies into the persecution without good reason.”
Where in Philemon is the institution of slavery attacked? What commentators advance this thesis? I’m genuinely curious. I know there was a lively debate about the nature of the letter in the nineteenth century here in the United States but am unfamiliar with many of the details.
The idea of Paul being on the down-low as an opponent of slavery may or may not be true (And I find this a strange argument to make as it seems it can be nothing more than conjecture). We don’t have Paul. We have his extant writings. If some sort of secret knowledge of the feelings of Paul is necessary to unlock the true meaning of his texts regarding slavery… well we’re in Straussian territory and that’s a whole nother ball o wax.
“As regards Whitefield, this is a question about Whitefield, not Paul. We can debate whether or not Whitefield should have gone further in his context realizing the trajectory of Paul’s message. But that is about Whitefield and his time. Not Paul and his time.
Those who defended slavery as an institution, who kidnapped, abused, and sold people using Paul as a defense are to be judged on their own demerits. We are discussing Paul in his time, no?”
Brian, the question was not about Whitefield but about Whitefield’s reading of Paul. Where does Whitefield go wrong? How is his reading mistaken? Is it because he fails to realize that Paul is secretly on the down-low against slavery? Is his failure to have gone further in his context realizing the trajectory of Paul’s message due to a lack of knowledge of Paul’s secretly held beliefs carefully coded into his letters?
@Dan: Again, we must read the Apostle as approaching this subject with pastoral sensitivity. He is not writing as a cultural critic. He is writing to new Christians who are slaves and new Christians who are masters. He must be wise in what he asks of his readers. To demand he write addressing slavery as an institutional good or evil is to demand too much.
To new Christians who are slaves, he must aim to keep their eyes on what they can do. He will not promote violent revolt, for one settled matter for Paul is that we do not return evil for evil. He will not demand masters release slaves because there is so much nuance to such a command: (1) where do slaves go?; (2) what do slaves do to survive?; (3) won’t someone else just take the slave for themselves; etc. In the case of Philemon, someone whom he seems to know intimately, he does ask for the release of a slave because the slave is now part of the Christian family. Paul must start somewhere.
If a master treats a slave with the respect that Paul demands we will see important changes occurring in society, but social reform is not Paul’s agenda.
You are right to note we only have Paul’s text, but the act of reading demands we do not do so in a vacuum. Again, we must read Paul in his context. How did what he said to slaves and to masters relate to the common cultural understanding of slavery? How does this issue relate to Paul’s broader, primary vocation as a apostle/herald of the gospel?
I have not studied Whitefield, nor his situation, nor his beliefs on the matter, so I won’t be dragged away from the main statement that you made. You saw Paul as being in support of slavery. I am saying it is more nuanced than that. No, he is not an abolitionist. Neither was he in support of the institution.
It is a whole different discussion on whether lack of historical data or context justified Whitefield’s mis-reading of Paul. Not my issue to address.
“In the case of Philemon, someone whom he seems to know intimately, he does ask for the release of a slave because the slave is now part of the Christian family. Paul must start somewhere.”
Brian,
Sorry I missed this if you had mentioned it earlier! I hadn’t encountered this reading of Philemon before and this seems to be the hermetical key to your understanding of Paul’s approach to the question. I’ll have to revisit the text again (thanks for the occasion to do so!) but my reading had always been that Paul’s plea to Philemon to forgive his slave and welcome him back into his household as a brother in Christ, not as a call for his manumission. Can you recommend any commentaries that advocate this reading? Thanks for the discussion!