The Unique Validity of Biblical Ethics

Four ethical systems are very evident on the contemporary North American scene. Three emphasize a single basis for decisions: for one it is freedom, for another law, and for the third love. But each of these principles alone is inadequate. The fourth system successfully integrates these principles, and it alone is valid.

Existentialism

Jean-Paul Sartre is probably the best-known exponent of this view. Sartre believes there is no God, and he therefore is pessimistic about the human predicament. Man is alone in the universe, says the existentialist; he is free to act, but he is under the necessity to act in order to be free. He exists, but existence is void of meaning, absurd. Man is a biological curiosity, temporarily arising in nature, struggling to survive and to find meaning to life before he dies. He lives for himself and establishes values as situations arise. All guidelines are irrelevant. Authentic decisions arise spontaneously from man’s inner sense of what the moment demands.

For Sartre, freedom is the nearest thing to a guideline. There is no one correct decision for freedom to make in any circumstance. Decisions are not right or wrong; they are only authentically free or not free. In this view, man is condemned to a freedom so absolute that it knows no limits other than that of ceasing to be free at all. Unfortunately, many men who have never heard of existentialism or Sartre share this position and will say they “just do what is right”—decided solely by their feelings.

Hyperlegalism

This distortion of true Christian ethics is all too prevalent among Christians. Its spirit is to make hard and fast rules for everything and then maintain that they are biblical. This view makes absolutes of many things that are relative, things that individuals must decide on principle in their own situation. Is a Christian one who puts his faith in Christ and then “neither smokes, drinks, dances, or chews, nor associates with those who do”?

The lists of do’s and dont’s are often bound more closely to cultural traditions than to true biblical principles. However, those not bound by this legalism are often unnecessarily hostile and critical toward those who are.

Laws certainly have value, but they can be misused. There is often a confusion of the letter and the spirit of the law. Non-scriptural absolutes on such matters as dress and entertainment are sometimes stressed more than loving concern for others. Often the details of the code are transplanted directly from biblical times into the twentieth century, with the result that the underlying principles are missed. We can have the letter but miss the spirit. Thus concern for feminine modesty is lost sight of in the debates about hair length. Modesty is a constant, but the meaning of hair styles can vary. Such things must be understood in their earlier cultural context and then be translated accurately into the context of the twentieth century.

Many hyperlegalistic Christians are sincere, but they substitute appearance for responsible conduct. They may then do the right thing for the wrong reasons, thereby bringing little satisfaction to themselves and predisposing to rebellion those who see through the inconsistencies. It is worth remembering that hyperlegalism was soundly condemned by Christ: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt. 23:27, 28).

Situation Ethics

In part, situation ethics is a reaction to the hyperlegalism that has at some times and in some places existed within the Church. But it is more. It is also a part of man’s recurrent temptation to overestimate himself, his reason, and his essential goodness. In short it is idolatry, the ethical equivalent of worshiping the created and neglecting the omniscience and sovereignity of the Creator. To the degree that situation ethics denounces excessive legalism, provincialism, pride, and oversimplification, it has merit. It has a healthy skepticism of traditions; but unfortunately it classes God-revealed laws and principles as “mere traditions” and concludes by making all absolutes relative.

It then follows inevitably that there are no rules that can be applied apart from the complex nature of the particular situation. Admonitions of Scripture are regarded as inflexible and therefore inadequate. The only guideline permitted is love. The question one must ask is: “What does love demand of me in this situation?” From this perspective no situation is always wrong. Because love can never express itself in absolute laws, one can never prejudge any situation.

But why this assumption? What is the basis for accepting the teachings of Christ on love as valid and universal, yet denying his confirmation of the Ten Commandments? Presumably just plain reason. But assuming that man is neither completely rational nor completely irrational, how can we be sure that the advocates of the new morality are correct? If Jesus is God, however, this fact alone provides a completely rational base for Christian ethics.

A major problem in situation ethics is that man cannot really define “a situation.” From his limited view, with all his subjectivity, a man simply cannot foresee the future repercussions of what he decides at this moment. Might not an omniscient God be able to see the total situation objectively and be able to define absolutes?

It is sometimes implied that Christ set the precedent of doing away with rules and substituting love. But this view fails to distinguish between rules made by God and rules made by men. We should be ready and willing to rebel against man-made rules and to substitute love. But God’s rules are an expression of his love. Christ did not do away with any of the Ten Commandments. He did, however, point out the way a legalistic spirit had thwarted the meaning of those laws. He broke down a number of man-made traditions about the Sabbath, for instance, but he did not say we were not to keep the Sabbath holy. Rather, he showed what it meant in the first century to keep the Sabbath holy. Certainly he expressed love to the woman taken in adultery; he treated her as a person with meaning and value and prevented her being stoned. But he did not say that adultery was right. On the contrary, he said, “Sin no more.”

The Scriptural Approach

This approach to ethics seems to provide the freedom, law, and love that the other approaches seek. It accepts love as the guiding principle of conduct, yet recognizes too that man is not completely rational in all his choices and that, without some guidelines, he can talk himself into many unloving things in the name of love.

Submission

Although corralled in Grace,

My will still sometimes balks

And stomps and stamps the earth

And rears and flails and neighs

Defiance, for

The bit is hard.

Once, Lord, you rode

An untried colt—

Unbroken, yet for you,

Submissive—and it heard

Hosannas to your name!

O Lord, subdue—

I long to hear hosannas too!

JANE W. LAUBER

An imperative of the scriptural view is the truth that love and law are not opposites; they are complements. Just as the love of God motivated the giving of these laws for man’s own welfare, so does the person who truly loves God try to keep his commandments. Love is clearly superior to cold law in human relations. But love subjectively experienced and humanly interpreted is quite inferior to divine love which is experienced in the Godhead and is objectively revealed to man—in Christ and in the biblical propositions. Hence, human love cannot be the final norm for ethical conduct. The decision is not really between love and law, both on the human level, but between the revealed divine love and human love apart from revelation. Scripture maintains that man experiences love from God and then in turn expresses this love in his situation within certain revealed guidelines. The Christian seeks to live an ethical life because he is a Christian; love makes him wish to live as his Lord and Master would have him live.

Love can be seen as the basis for each of the Ten Commandments. I love God, so I do not worship other gods or graven images or take his name in vain. I love my neighbor, so I do not steal from him, seduce his wife, or lie to him. In these situations, law merely expresses what love demands.

Having accepted this scriptural approach, we still often meet problems in which it is difficult to be sure just what the demands of love are; these must be resolved situationally. Although the commandments define the larger boundaries of personal conduct, those who accept God’s explicit commands still are left with enough decisions to make to insure the development of ethical responsibility. How are we to be Good Samaritans in our own century with its poverty, exploding population, and threat of nuclear war? What does it mean in an affluent society to have no other gods? We are to keep the Sabbath holy, but what does this imply about our conduct in the twentieth century? How does one honor father and mother in what increasingly seems to be a welfare state? Premarital intercourse is wrong, but how do we show Christ’s love and concern situationally to the pregnant single girl? Murder is wrong, but are abortions always murder? In these areas we must act situationally and through prayer, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit seek to find what God’s love demands of us. We can be certain it demands action.

Why should God not express his love in rules? As a parent I express my love for my children in rules I know are for their benefit. God also can express his love in rules as well as in relationships. Rules are certainly no substitute for love. But love expressed to us by God, and by us to others, may well include some rules. Rules alone cannot express the full meaning of love in any relationship. Yet rules may well define what love permits and what it disallows.

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.