Ethical decision

CHAPTER 11

THE CHAPLAIN AS ETHICAL ADVISOR Rev. Dr. Kenneth W. Bush

There has been renewed interest in the role of the pastor as public theologian. Kevin

Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan (2015) in their book The Pastor as Public Theologian:

Reclaiming a Lost Vision convincingly argue that although the vision of the theological nature of

pastoral ministry has been significantly lost due to social and cultural pressures, the work of

public theology is still at the heart of the pastoral vocation and must be reclaimed. As Dr. Albert

Mohler writes, “The pastoral calling is inherently theological” and the idea of the pastoral role as

non-theological is “inconceivable in the light of the New Testament” (2010, 5). Pastors and

therefore chaplains are theologians, in particular they are public theologians whose role is is “to

seek, speak, and show understanding of what God was doing in Christ for the sake of the world”

(Vanhoozer and Strachan, 17). These pastor-theologians are “a special kind of generalist: a

generalist who specializes in viewing all of life as relating to God and the gospel of Jesus

Christ” (Vanhoozer and Strachan, 25). So as we can see, theology in this context is not an

academic exercise; it is the application of biblical truth to life. A key component of this public

theological vocation, and the focus of this chapter, is the role of the chaplain as a public moral

theologian. Chaplains by virtue of their theological calling must view their role as ethical

advisors as a call to apply biblical truth to the pursuit of the knowledge of right and wrong, how

we are to behave in the light of that knowledge, and the integration of ethical and moral truth

into public life. One way to reflect on the nature of this calling is to reflect on the chaplain’s role

as moral advisor in terms of the classic offices of Christ: Prophet, Priest and King. But before we

examine these roles, we will consider a few essential definitions as well explore a theologically

focused ethical model that can serve as the framework for our moral reflection and decision-

making. After examining the roles of a moral theologian through the framework of the offices,

we will close by reflecting on how we shape the way we present our theologically shaped moral

values and the results of our moral reasoning in an increasingly pluralistic environment that

downplays the theological voice.

Some Basic Definitions

The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, yet in technical usage they

have related but different meanings. Morality is best understood as the content of right and

wrong, it focuses on moral knowledge. It is a descriptive in nature. In a Christian view of life and

the world, morality is associated with the revealed character of God in the Scriptures, particularly

the law, as well as commands and other guiding principles derived from God’s special

revelation. Ethics on the other hand focuses on the process of determining right and wrong. It

deals with moral reasoning and its results. It is prescriptive and concentrates on the systems,

models, and frameworks that we use to establish moral standards and solve moral problems.

Moral systems are generally divided into three broad categories. The deontological

approach considers the norms, duties, and rules that apply to a situation. Divine command

theory, ethical rationalism and natural law are examples of approaches that fit this category. The

teleological approach to ethics considers the consequences produced by an action. For example,

in the common teleological approach known as utilitarianism, the best action is that which

produces the greatest good for the greatest number. A popular corollary of this approach is

situational ethics which uses love as the principle to evaluate the greatest good. Another

teleological approach is ethical egoism which bases ethical good on what is in the best interest of

the individual. Both the deontological and teleological approaches are considered action-oriented

systems. A third school of moral systems is the areteological approach, a virtue-based system, it

focuses on the moral agent or agents involved in the moral decision making process with a

particular view towards issues of character. These broad categories apply to

secular/philosophical as well as theological approaches to moral theory. The primary difference

is one of authority. Secular or philosophical approaches tend to be anthropocentric, finding their

authority in autonomous human reason that makes man the norm, the standard for behavior.

Theologically shaped morality is by definition theocentric, it makes God the center of standards

of right and wrong. For the evangelical Christian chaplain, God must be at the center and

morality determined by the standards revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

As Christian chaplains working in a pluralistic environment we are sometimes tempted to

develop our moral principles and ethical reasoning process from what we believe others will

perceive as a “neutral” secular approach to morality and ethics while privately confessing the

Scriptures as the source of our moral values. Mary Poplin (2014) captures the struggle in the title

of her book Is Reality Secular? The truth is that a secular viewpoint is not neutral because it

constitutes a view of reality in competition with a biblical, theistic worldview. Dennis Hollinger

(2002) states the resulting tension well:

There is a tendency today to eliminate religiously based ethics from public square debates

and allow only secular versions to influence the shape and motivations of public life.

Such forms of secularization not only cut off the culture from rich resources needed in a

complex, pluralistic world but also severely limit the rights of those who live their lives

in the light of religious commitments. At the same time, some religious believers in

pluralistic societies err in attempting to force their religiously rooted ethic on an

unbelieving society. This raises conflicts within society and in the case of Christianity is

also contrary to biblical understandings of Christian morality. (23)

We will discuss how we share the fruits of a theologically framed understanding of morals and

moral reasoning in the final section of this chapter.

For now, we must recognize that morals and ethical reasoning are influenced by our

worldview and since worldview is at the heart of who we are as human beings, we cannot deny

the biblical roots of our moral values and reasoning and remain true and consistent with our

personal identity in Christ and our theological role as pastors. David Jones (2013) provides us a

good definition of what we are to be about:

Biblical ethics is the study and application of the morals prescribed in God’s Word that

pertains to the kind of conduct, character, and goals required of one who professes to be

in a redemptive relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. (6)

For the Christian chaplain our approach to morality and moral reasoning must be Gospel-centric.

They are grounded in the authority of the Triune God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures

and calls us to a personal relationship with him through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His

redemptive plan is worked out through time and space in the narrative of creation, fall,

redemption and restoration, a narrative that shapes our belief and action. How can we capture our

understanding of ethics in a workable theological framework that remains faithful to the Gospel?

While there are a number of approaches, one that emphasizes the Trinitarian nature of God and

accounts for what we know about morality and ethics from both philosophical and theological

categories is the Triperspectival View of Ethics proposed by theologian John Frame (2008).

Triperspectival View of Ethics

John Frame (2008) writes that the most common approaches to Christian ethics involves

command ethics, narrative ethics, and virtue ethics. He describes them as follows:

Command ethics emphasizes the authority of God’s moral law. Narrative ethics emphasizes

the history of redemption. It teaches ethics by telling the story of salvation. Virtue ethics

discusses the inner character of the regenerate person, focusing on virtues listed in passages

like Romans 5:1–5, Galatians 5:22–23, and Colossians 3:12–17. (Frame 2008, 31)

Some Christian ethicists rely heavily on one ethical school of thought; others use two or more in

their ethical reasoning process. Frame (2008) argues that the Scriptures uses all three methods to

motivate Christians towards right moral behavior and proposes that in general “ethical judgment

involves the application of a norm to a situation by a person” (33-34). This simple but

comprehensive model combines all three approaches to ethical theory (deontological,

teleological, and areteological/virtue) and may be applied to any ethical/moral situation without

having extensive specialized training in the field of ethics. Let’s examine each of Frame’s

proposed perspectives individually.

The normative perspective corresponds to

the deontological approach to ethics. As you

reflect on this perspective you should ask

yourself what norms apply to the moral issue

under consideration from the broadest to the most

specific. In addition to biblical norms you must also

consider what national and organizational values, policies, guidance, procedures, directives, or

orders might apply. The situational perspective corresponds to the teleological approach to

A Triperspectival View of Ethics

ethics. As you reflect on this perspective you should ask what the consequences of an action

might be to include potential the second and third order effects. One test would be to consider the

impact if the consequences of a decision showed up as a headline on CNN or Fox news? The

existential perspective corresponds to an areteological approach to ethics which considers the

moral agents involved, particularly with an emphasis on issues of character. You should consider

whether the actions you take are in keeping with your expected moral and behavioral standards.

Does this action demonstrate inner character and virtue? Is it in keeping with organizational

values? As a Christian you must consider whether our actions are in keeping with God’s design

for us.

Because of the revelatory nature of the Christian faith, the normative perspective is

dominant. Nevertheless, a biblical approach to ethical reasoning requires the consideration of all

three perspectives. Frame is not the only theologian who believes that a balanced Christian ethic

requires all three perspectives. Stassen and Gushee (2003) in their extensive presentation of a

Christo-centric ethic entitled Kingdom Ethics, Following Jesus in Contemporary Context write:

Christian ethics, then must be sufficiently biblical to avoid reducing the moral life to a

mere decisionism or legalism of abstract deontological absolutes. It must integrate those

goals which the Scriptures urge the church to strive for as part of kingdom-seeking as well

as those virtues of character which we are to seek to embody to get us there. The best

overall term for the substantive content of Christian ethics is the broadest available –

Christian ethics is about the entire “way of life” of the people of faith (Eph 2:10; cf. Deut

30:19-20). No aspect of moral existence is left out – decisions, practices, convictions,

principles, goas and virtues are all included in the effort to “live your life in a manner

worthy of the gospel” (Phil 1:27; cf. Rom 16:2; Eph 4:1; Col 1:10) as we seek the kingdom

of God. (122)

The Moral Theologian and the Offices of Christ A model which considers the role of the moral theologian from each of Frame’s three

perspectives is the Offices of Christ. In creation God made Adam vice-regent over the creation,

exercising the roles of prophet, priest and king (Grudem 1994). This vice-regency was

provisional. Eden’s Garden was not the whole earth. It had defined borders. Had Adam fulfilled

his God-ordained responsibilities in the Garden, God would have extended Eden’s paradise to

the entire creation through mankind’s rule. But Adam and Eve failed to fulfill that calling and

everything in creation was marred and disrupted to include man’s exercise of God-ordained

leadership. While the Fall subverted man’s vice-regency, God partially restored the offices of

prophet, priest, and king under the Old Covenant as a means for the ongoing rule of his people.

These offices remained embodied in three distinctly separate offices. Under the New Covenant

the roles were unified and fulfilled in the person of Christ, who came to restore the creational

order. Christ the second Adam fulfilled and redeemed the three offices that Adam failed to

fulfill. Wayne Grudem (1994) speaking about Christ states that,

As prophet he reveals God to us and speaks God’s words to us; as priest he both offers a

sacrifice to God on our behalf and is himself the sacrifice that is offered; and as king he

rules over the earth and the universe as well. (624)

Because of our union with Christ, we now share in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and kingly roles.

What can these roles tell us about our role as moral advisor/leader in chaplain ministry?

The Moral Theologian as Prophet

The prophet was called to expose the idols of people’s hearts, and then to call them to

repentance and return to the worship of the true God. Concerned with orthodoxy, right belief, the

prophetic role aligns with the normative or intellectual perspective of reality; it brings God’s

truth to his people as expounded in the Scriptures. The moral theologian as prophet deals with

truth and authority. He asks, “What does God tell us to believe?” In terms of their prophetic role,

the chaplain highlights ethical/moral obligations and duties. He also serves a moral teacher for

the organization he serves.

The Moral Theologian as Priest

Concerned with orthopathy, right feeling, the priestly role of the chaplain as moral advisor

aligns with the existential or experiential perspective of reality. The focus is on the moral agent

and their relationship with God. The moral advisor in this role focuses on the development of

character and virtue. The chaplain also serves as a moral example for his organization.

Up to this point we have been examining the field of normative ethics which is concerned

about moral norms and their application. Another aspect of ethics that closely aligns with our

priestly role as moral example is professional ethics. This area of study is concerned with the

development of normative principles that are used to guide a profession. Many professions such

as the standard professions of law, medicine and theology have developed written codes of

conduct or standards of practice that they expect of their members. When reflecting on their

priestly role, chaplains should consider adopting a code of ethics. Some denominations or

professional organizations for chaplains in specific ministry contexts have a written code of

ethics that they are expected to adhere to as members. If a chaplain does not have access to such

a code, they should develop a personal code of ethics such as those as proposed by Tull and

Carter (2004).

The Moral Theologian as King

Concerned with orthopraxy, right actions, the kingly role of the chaplain as moral advisor

aligns with the situational or action aspect of reality. It deals with the nature of the situation and

the action required. It asks, “What needs to happen?” The priestly role corresponds to what we

normally think of as a chaplain’s responsibility of providing ethical advisement. As moral

advisor the chaplain applies truth to specific situations. In this role how does the chaplain make

theologically informed ethical decisions? It is helpful to consider a model for the process. While

certainly not the only moral reasoning model available, the following model incorporates the

theological perspectives proposed by Frame.

A Theologically Shaped Model for Ethical Decision-Making

Step 1: Recognize a Moral/Ethical Issue

The first step in a moral reasoning process may seem obvious, but it can be exceedingly

complex. We need to recognize the central nature of the moral or ethical issue that you face.

How you define the issue is critical to your eventual outcome. If the problem is not clearly

identified or stated, your presuppositions can lead you down the wrong path. There may be

multiple ethical dimensions to a situation but the moral advisor needs to be able to identify the

root issue and succinctly define the ethical problem in a few sentences. The chaplain also needs

to identify any potentially conflicting ethical values that may create an ethical dilemma in the

final analysis. While some ethical decisions require immediate action, use the majority of the

available time you have to deal with the issue analyzing and defining it.

Step 2: Determine Courses of Action

The next step is to determine possible courses of action or approaches to the problem or

issue at hand. Some problems may boil down to a simple yes or no choice but many involve

complex moral issues that could result in multiple options. During this step the chaplain needs to

determine all possible options that are available to solve the problem. Once again, careful

attention should be paid to the potential conflict of values that need to be considered in the next

step of the process.

Step 3: Evaluate Courses of Action

The next step is the heart of the moral reasoning process. It is not enough to simply say that

we follow the Scriptures when we make moral decisions. Which Scriptures speak to the issue?

Could they be understood

differently using a

different theological

framework? How do they

apply? How does my

theological tradition or

community view the

interpretation of these

texts? Some ethical commands in the Scriptures are clear. At other times the situation may

require the reasoned application of biblical principles. Conservative, evangelical theologians

committed to the inerrancy and relevance of the Scriptures have used a variety of paradigms to

analyze ethical issues. Some focus on the theological virtues of faith, hope and love. Others

argue for viewing ethical issues through the lens of biblical love or the Ten Commandments. As

Normative: What laws, rules, norms or cultural standards apply? What biblical principles, standards, rules, or paradigms apply? Situational: What are the consequences of this choice? What would be the best choice for the common good? What are the best means of accomplishing God’s purposes? Existential: Is this decision compatible with my character? What virtues are reinforced or violated by this decision?

Evaluative Questions for Each Perspective

noted above, some theologians like Frame (2008) or Stassen and Gushee (2003) argue for a more

comprehensive approach. Jones (1994) also proposes a comprehensive model that views love as

the motive and norm of ethics but also includes the cardinal and theological virtues and the

Decalogue. The best approach is to cast a wide net and consider a number of lenses by which to

view the courses of action identified in step 2. The chaplain should develop a set of evaluative

questions like the examples in the text box. These questions should reflect the moral criteria and

framework selected by the chaplain.

Step 4: Make a Decision Once all of the possible courses of action have been evaluated, the next step in the process

is to make a decision. This involves the moral decision maker’s intent to choose one moral

choice over other based on the moral criteria used in the previous step. Some decisions may

result in negative consequences to the decision maker. In these situations, the right choice will

require moral courage to face personal sacrifice or possibly even suffering. Nevertheless, the

choice remains morally clear. But what about conflicting commands of Scripture? Rae (2009)

describes three ways Christian ethicists resolve these conflicts. The first approach is

nonconflicting absolutism which holds that because of the nature of God’s character and his

inspired and inerrant Word, such conflicts are not possible. It is simply a failure to fully

understand or properly interpret God’s commands. One way out of such a seeming conflict is to

ask for God’s providential deliverance. Another solution would be to examine the Scripture to

see if God’s intent may be captured more clearly. The second approach is “to admit that real

moral conflicts do exist, but sin is still sin, even when a person is faced with competing

obligations” (Rae 2009, 50). Conflicting obligations are a result of life in a sinful world and the

one making a moral choice may be choosing the lesser of two evils but remains culpable and can

seek forgiveness. As Rae (2009) points out, being required to sin and remaining morally culpable

for a choice that could not be avoided is itself morally problematic. The third option known as

graded absolutism or hierarchicalism proposes that while moral conflicts are a reality of life in a

fallen world there is a hierarchy within God’s laws choosing to follow the higher law makes the

choice morally justifiable and not a sin. As Rae (2009) points out, “A person has the obligation

to do the greater good and is not morally culpable for doing what could not be avoided” (51).

Take Appropriate Action

The fifth and final step is to take appropriate action. Based on the decision in the previous step

the chaplain must follow through with specific actions to implement that decision. This focuses

on the motivation of the decision maker and the character required to persist in completing the

process regardless of opposition and obstacles. This entire process may be visualized in the

model below.

In this brief overview of the moral reasoning process we have not looked at the

application of biblical principles to specific moral issues. As part of their professional

development chaplains should sharpen their understanding of theological ethics and its

applications by reading one or more survey books on theological ethics. In addition to the books

by Rae (2009), Jones (1994), and Stassen and Gushee (2003), they would profit by reading

Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church today by John Jefferson Davis (1993) or Ethics for

a Brave New World by John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg. Those interested in medical

ethics should consider Bioethics: A Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age by Scott B. Rae

and Paul M. Cox.

Sharing the Fruits of Our Moral Reasoning

As moral theologians our decisions are shaped by our theology. However, most chaplains

work in a pluralistic context that may not openly accept theological arguments in a public forum.

How do we effectively share the fruits of our moral reasoning with a world increasingly hostile

to religion or religious arguments? Dennis Hollinger (2002, 242-255) proposes four Christian

ethics responses in the midst of a pluralistic culture. The first is a privatization of religion

response. In this approach religion becomes purely a private matter defining personal meaning

and growth. It does not play a role in the public square. Some religious traditions opt for this

approach, but it is also the dominant expectation of our increasingly secularized culture.

Underlying its popularity is a form of hermeneutical/philosophical pluralism that denies moral

absolutes and views all claims to an overarching metanarrative as intolerant (Carson 1996). As

moral theologians we have a responsibility to represent God’s moral claim on every aspect of

creation and to be salt and light to the world. Privatization narrowly defines the Gospel and cuts

off its transformative message from our culture.

The second is a theocratic or Constantinian approach that “seeks to mandate a religiously

based ethic for the entire society” (Hollinger 2002, 244). Hollinger (2002) writes that such an

approach is “contrary to the nature of Christianity, which is based on faith, not public or cultural

inducements” (248). The Gospel is not coercive and there is no biblical warrant for the forcible

establishment of a theocratic society. It is also contrary to our national values of freedom of

religion for all citizens. Hollinger (2002) accurately observes that even those he calls “soft

theocrats”; those who argue for a judicial and legislative recognition of a moral tradition that

flows from our Judeo-Christian heritage run into a problem. Ultimately such an approach

politically favors one tradition over another which denies free exercise to others, denying equal

rights and fostering conflict and hostility. For obvious reasons, this approach will not work for

the public moral theologian in a pluralistic setting.

The third is a civil religion approach that seeks to build a consensus in a pluralistic

society by creating a “broad religion around which the entire society can unite” (Hollinger 2002,

248). This view has a tendency to legitimatize a nation’s actions sometimes circumventing moral

accountability (Hollinger 2002, 250). While this approach may avoid conflicts, from a Christian

viewpoint civil religion is a form of idolatry that seeks to substitute a watered down faith for the

reality of the Gospel. Hollinger’s (2002) analysis correctly leads to the conclusion that all three

of these approaches are inconsistent with the biblical witness.

Hollinger (2002) calls his fourth way the Christian influence approach. In this approach

the moral theologian simultaneously operates within a biblical commitment to truth while at the

same time accepting and defending pluralism within the society (Hollinger 2002, 252). He is not

referring here to the morally relativistic hermeneutical/philosophical pluralism we mentioned

above with its irrational definition of tolerance, rather he is talking about a principled pluralism

similar to the approach taken by our military chaplaincies. Hollinger proposes a couple of

qualifications to this approach. First, he writes that “we should insist (on the basis of theology

and societal need) that religion, including particularistic brands of Christianity, ought to be a

voice within the public arena” (Hollinger 2002, 252). As public theologians we have a

theological obligation as well as a civil right under our First Amendment to speak our ethical

convictions (Hollinger 2002). Second, while seeking to influence public policy, we must

recognize the limits of political action to establish biblical principles in a pluralistic culture.

In order to successfully influence the culture, Hollinger (2002) suggests that, “Christians

will need to be bilingual, at times speaking the language of Zion, which undergirds the specific

of our ethics, and at times also speaking the broader language that is not dependent on the

particularities of the biblical faith” (254). The author’s approach is similar to that proposed by

Hollinger. When communicating our morals and moral reasoning we should look for common

ground. We can search for and find common ground for a number of reasons. First, as Christians

we believe that a divine order was embedded by God in the creation itself. Truth about human

nature and relationships exist because God exists and has revealed something about himself in

the creative order. Second, men and women created in the image and likeness of God have an

inborn awareness of God’s moral requirements and are capable of understanding them through

general revelation in nature and conscience even if in a limited way. We can appeal to that

inborn awareness. In spite of the effects of the Fall, “Christians can appeal to the remnant of

God’s design that is embedded in the hearts and minds of even fallen humanity” (Hollinger 2002,

254). We can specifically appeal to biblical concepts like human dignity, respect for others, the

sanctity of human life, justice, peace, concern for the oppressed and poor, and human flourishing

as bridges to similar concepts in secular culture. We translate our theological language into

philosophical language and argue from the merit of our solutions and the impact of their

underlying truth.

Conclusions

Christian ethics is not an independent philosophical endeavor; it is in fact moral theology

(Jones 2013, 2). Moral theology, like all other forms of theology, is redemptive in nature. The

discovery and application of moral values is part of God’s common and redemptive grace to

humanity. Its ultimate goal is the transformation and conformity of the individual and the world

to the will of God. As public moral theologians, chaplains have a responsibility to move beyond

mimicking the culture’s vacuous approach to values masquerading as virtues or morals. In their

prophetic, priestly, and kingly roles chaplains are to teach, exemplify, and advise those they

serve with moral truth and reasoning shaped by the nature of God and his revelation of himself in

the Scriptures. Insisting on their right to a legitimate voice in the public square, they recognize

the limits of theological language in an increasingly secularized and pluralistic culture and

skillfully translate the truth into language and concepts the culture can understand. They engage

the world, recognizing as Abraham Kuyper (1998) so eloquently stated that, “There is not a

square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign

over all, does not cry, Mine!” (488).

Works Cited

Carson, D.A. 1996. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Frame, John. 2008. The doctrine of the Christian life. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and

Reformed Publishers.

Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.

Hollinger, Dennis P. 2002. Choosing the good: Christian ethics in a complex world. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academics.

Jones, David Clyde. 1994. Biblical Christian ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Jones, David W. 2013. An introduction to biblical ethics. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.

Kuyper, Abraham. 1998. "Sphere Sovereignty". In Bratt, James D. Abraham Kuyper, A

centennial reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Mohler, Albert R., Jr. 2010. The pastor as theologian. Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary.

Poplin, Mary. 2014. Is reality secular?: Testing the assumptions of four global worldviews.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Rae, Scott B., 2009. Moral choices: An introduction to ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Rae, Scott B. and Paul M. Cox. 1999. Bioethics: A Christian approach in a pluralistic age.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. 2003. Kingdom ethics: Following Jesus in contemporary

context. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Tull, Joe E., and James E. Carter. 2004. Ministerial ethic: Moral formation for church leaders.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., and Owen Strachan. 2015. The pastor as public theologian: Reclaiming a

lost vision. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.