Introduction
Biblical Ethics and Living Wisely
Ethics (from the Greek word ethos) might be called a system of moral values, virtues and
duties. It has to do with ideal human character, actions and ends. What ought a person do or
refrain from doing? What attitudes, behavior and qualities should be viewed as good?
And why should they be considered good? What is the highest good, “the chief end of man,”
the purpose of human existence? These are the questions the study of ethics seeks to answer.
Since the time of the Enlightenment (1650–1800), however, ethics has been separated
from theology in an effort to separate the sacred and the secular, and now we find ourselves
in the midst of a crisis about the foundation of ethics. We’ve all heard atheists claiming that
“we can be good without God,” that “we don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong,”
that we should be “good for goodness’ sake.” True, non-believers can both know and do good
things, even though alienated from God. But this hardly begins to address the crisis, let alone
show how goodness could emerge in a Godless world. The ultimate answer to this moral
crisis is the existence of a good, personal God, in whose image humans have been made and
who serves as the basis for objective ethics, duties, human rights and personal dignity; and
this God has most clearly revealed his very character and will in the person and ministry as
well as the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Attempting to remove God from the
picture of reality in an effort to formulate “secular” ethical systems has helped create the
crisis in the first place. We will return to this point.
There are many approaches to discovering answers to these questions of ethics, but the
approach of this book is turning to Scripture and, as best we can, examining biblical texts
and contexts dealing with each ethical question discussed. We do this, first, because of the
conviction that the Bible is a divine revelation and thus a source of genuine knowledge for
human beings—not mere “preferences” or “personal values.” It gives us true guidance for
living wise and faithful lives—guidance that includes moral facts. Let us not fall into the trap
of compartmentalizing public facts from private values, as our society so often does. Second,
while some differentiate between the more theoretical and philosophical term ethics and the
more specific category of morality as referring to specific customs, habits and taboos, we
will use these terms interchangeably. Third, we have confidence that the Bible is trustworthy
in what it affirms. Though we may utilize other sources for assistance in understanding and
applying biblical truth, we shall treat the Bible as our final authority. And we will seek to
apply biblical principles as well as direct mandates, but we will attempt to go only as far as
Scripture itself goes and maintain the emphases of the Bible itself. So we call our
study biblical ethics.
James asks, “Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good
behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom” (Jas 3:13). Thus, this book is concerned
with living wisdom—living wisely, or living out wisdom, which begins with the fear of the
Lord (Ps 111:10). By submitting to God as our authority, we begin to walk in the way of
wisdom. What’s more, the incarnate Christ is the very embodiment of God’s wisdom (1 Cor
1:30; Col 2:3). As the “second Adam” (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15), he comes to restore a fallen human
race by creating a new, redeemed humanity—a community that is being shaped into his
image as part of the new creation (2 Cor 3:18; 5:17; Gal 4:19).
“An Introduction,” as part of the title, implies that the study of any given ethical issue
will not be exhaustive. Nevertheless, we will attempt to be comprehensive in two ways. First,
we will attempt to highlight the key elements involved so that students of biblical ethics may
expand their understanding through additional study based on what is found herein. At the
end of each chapter is recommended reading for further study. Second, we will attempt to
survey, as best as we can, what we consider to be essential ethical issues, classical and
contemporary, personal and social. Though some divide personal ethics from social ethics,
we will seek to integrate them in the conviction that few issues are exclusively personal and
that social problems will only be solved by individual people taking responsible action.
Ethics Among the Disciplines
Before noting our methodology, it might prove helpful to pause and observe how ethics
relates to other disciplines—philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science and religion
—and what the major approaches to ethics have been.
Since philosophy—the “love of wisdom”—involves hard thinking about important issues,
ethics has traditionally been considered a part of philosophy. Christian ethics, then, would be
part of Christian philosophy, or what some include under systematic theology.
When a new ethical problem arises in society, such as gay marriage or sex-change
operations, newspaper reporters or TV anchors frequently consult a local professor
of psychology. In many ways, it would make just as much sense—if not more—to consult the
local bartender. Psychology is descriptive and can only tell us, with greater or lesser
precision, what the average person does and what may result if averages hold. It lacks any
authority to speak of what human behavior ought to be. Since it lacks this authority, and
since it should hold tentatively any conclusions it reaches, it is properly non-normative in its
approach. Many psychologists, however, jump outside their sphere of expertise and assume a
non-normative relativism for all people, insisting that it is wrong to say anything is wrong!
True enough, psychology may help us understand what produces conflict, but whether we
use this information to produce conflict or to allay it will depend on our values embedded
within our worldview or philosophy of life. As a matter of historic fact, psychological
insights are used by some to create conflict. And this is an ethical problem, not a
psychological one. Psychology helps people understand why they do what they do and
how they may change; ethics tells them what they ought to do.
Other behavioral sciences, such as sociology and cultural anthropology, are similar to
psychology. If these disciplines would stick to descriptive science and tell us how societies
and cultures function and what seems to result from particular behavior and social
arrangements, they would be very useful to politicians and ordinary citizens in understanding
themselves and how they might prove more successful in changing the way things are done.
But these sciences have become increasingly prescriptive, imposing moral (cultural)
relativity or, more recently, certain secular, “politically correct” values. Anthropologists
holding such views tend to indiscriminately label Christian missionaries as “imperialistic”
and “ethnocentric” (considering one’s culture to be superior over another’s); this assumes a
universal moral prohibition—that ethnocentricity is morally wrong for all people at all times
and that it is not simply the expression of the anthropologist’s particular culture! Of course,
anthropologists or behavioral scientists have every right to sort out and advocate their own
values. But they lack any authority deriving from their discipline to speak to ethical issues.
Political science, on the other hand, brings together various disciplines, including the
insights of the behavioral sciences and, above all, ethics. The world often suffers because so
many politicians choose goals—and the pragmatics of how to accomplish those goals—
without ethical controls. Above all, the leader of people should specialize in ethics. The first
question should be, what is right? Not, what is in my best interest? Or, what is the current
pressure in my constituency? Or, what is possible? The pragmatic is properly the sphere of
the politician, and we recognize that negotiation and meeting halfway are often required to
avoid gridlock. After all, half a loaf is better than none. For example, a pro-life lawmaker can
be grateful for incremental victories to save human lives through legislation that curtails
abortion-on-demand (e.g., late-term abortions), even though more work remains to be done.
So the behavioral sciences will certainly help him answer questions about how a given goal
may best be achieved. But the control in choosing which goal to pursue must be the ethical:
we must move beyond the “is” to the “ought.”
Finally, how does ethics relate to religion? This begs the question of how to define
religion. Is religion that which deals with the supernatural—the belief in and service of a
god? If so, classical Confucianism can hardly be called a religion as it was purely an ethical
system. On the other hand, is ethics an essential part of religion? If so, Japan’s Shintoism
would not qualify, since it is an amoral set of rituals. The definition of religion is elusive to
both scholars and lawmakers, and the sacred-secular divide is a post-Enlightenment mistake
since the “secularist” makes ample non-neutral assumptions about the nature of reality, the
scope of ethics and the basis of knowledge and rationality. But perhaps traditional religion
could be understood as a deeply embedded heart-commitment that is
(a) comprehensive, (b) identity-shaping and (c) of central importance. Perhaps we could
speak of a “worldview” or an all-encompassing philosophy of life that captures what is at the
heart of religion. (This would be true whether one consciously reflects on those embedded
convictions and values or not.)
Humans are inescapably religious; they will place ultimate value on something and orient
their lives around it, serving one master or another (Mt 6:24). In the words of singer Bob
Dylan, “You gotta’ serve somebody.”[1] Naturally, one’s heart-commitment—one’s religion—
will give shape to moral values, attitudes and conduct. Whether we speak of religion in
traditional terms—such as Hinduism or Buddhism—or more broadly as a worldview such as
naturalism or atheism, a person will inescapably take a moral point of view. Even the
relativist will make an assessment about morality, however inconsistently he holds it. An
ethical stance is fundamental to all worldviews, and in part five we will give an overview and
assessment of leading ethical theories.
God, Revelation and Ethics
According to Jesus, the sum of our obligation is to love God and to love others (Mt
22:37-40). This is, as one author puts it, “the Jesus Creed.”[2]Wisdom is the skill for living
rightly, which means that true wisdom is anchored in a correct view of reality. Skillful living
begins with being properly aligned with the intrinsically relational, triune God. We start
with fearing the Lord (Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7), by humbling ourselves before his authority and
entering into covenant relation with him. This all-encompassing commitment enables us to
view life with increasing clarity that we may live wisely. As C. S. Lewis expressed it: “I
believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but
because by it I see everything else.”[3]
God’s self-revelation is both general (through reason, conscience, creation and human
experience) and special (Jesus Christ and Scripture). Because humans are made in God’s
image, they can recognize moral truths even if they do not believe in God. In his Abolition of
Man, C. S. Lewis took to cataloging moral codes across history and civilizations—Greek,
Roman, Hebrew, Babylonian, Chinese, Norse. Remarkably, the same kinds of moral laws
continue to surface: don’t steal; don’t bear false witness; don’t murder; honor your parents;
keep your promises (general revelation). In the Old Testament, God is often judging pagan
nations who had no Bible. On what basis does he judge them? Because they violated the
moral law within and suppressed their own conscience. They should have known better than
to break treaties, rip open pregnant women or deliver a vulnerable people into the hands of
their enemies (Amos 1–2).
So even though human sanctity or worth is rooted in God’s graciously creating us in his
likeness, people who do not believe in God can still get much right morally by attending to
their conscience and learning lessons by reflecting on their human experience: How would I
like to be treated in that way? Or, what if I were born into a different race, born at a different
time, born with a different skin color?
So, yes, the atheist can in some measure “be good without God”—that is, he
can know right from wrong without believing in God. But the more fundamental question is,
how did he come to be this way? Where do human worth, moral responsibility and duties
come from? The common problem in secular ethical systems is that they focus
on knowing ethical truths, but they have no basis for explaining how intrinsic human worth
or moral values and duties could emerge out of a materialistic, impersonal universe. Some
ethical systems simply presume that we are moral beings who can act as morally responsible
agents. But this stems from our being made in God’s image—with the capacity to relate to
God, to think deeply, to make free choices, to relate intimately with others, to think about the
meaning of life, to show creativity and to create culture. Alternate ethical systems typically
borrow from the resources of a biblical worldview to sustain themselves. They will assume
human dignity and worth, moral responsibility, the capacity to reason—assumptions that are
right at home within a biblical outlook.
The believer then has the double advantage of God’s general and special self-revelation.
Regarding natural revelation, we often have an immediate moral connection with non-
Christians (assuming they haven’t completely seared their conscience) because some things
are morally obvious: it’s wrong to torture babies for fun, to rape, or to beat your wife. One
doesn’t need the Bible to know this since the image of God in us enables us to think and act
morally. Yet we have further clarity through special revelation.
When we talk about “biblical ethics,” one might ask, Why not focus on “Christian
ethics”? As it turns out, Jesus’ entrance into the world did not primarily add new content to
what was revealed in the Old Testament. For example, the beatitudes in Matthew 5 reflect
qualities listed in Isaiah 61: “poor,” “brokenhearted,” “to comfort all who mourn,”
“righteousness,” “gladness,” “shout for joy,” “humiliation,” “possess . . . the land,”
“blessed,” “rejoice greatly,” “righteousness and praise.” Or loving one’s enemy (Mt 5:44)
was already commanded in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ex 23:4; Prov 25:21; cf. Lev 19:34). And
Jesus highlighted the “Golden Rule”—treating others as we want to be treated, which is
another way of saying “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18)—as the sum of the Law
and the Prophets.
In his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and the blessed hope of his return, Jesus gives
a new meaning and motivation to the moral core of the Old Testament. The believer’s
orientation is Christ, the new Adam (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) and the image of God (Col 1:15; Heb
1:3); he has come to restore our fallen humanity and to gradually transform us into his image
(2 Cor 3:18). This goal will be realized when he finally brings heaven and earth together (the
new heavens and new earth).
In his earthly ministry, Jesus announced that God’s kingdom or reign had broken into
human history, and he sought to show what it means for his followers to live under that rule
as God’s subjects and Jesus’ disciples. Living under the lordship of Christ will lead to an
enriched and deepened moral life—indeed, a moral transformation—that is sustained by
God’s grace as we trust and obey our heavenly Father.
Again, Jesus’ coming imparts life before God with new meaning and motivation through
his incarnation, life, death and resurrection. Being a new creation in Christ gives new shape
to our ethical lives. So, for instance, in the Old Testament, God’s people were commanded to
love God and others. Yet in the New Testament, the “old command” gives way to the “new
command”: “Love one another, even as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34; cf. 1 Jn 2:7-8). The
Christ event has the capacity to so reshape our identity that we will put off the things that
pertain to our old life in Adam (“the old self”) and put on the virtues that find their
orientation in Christ—love, kindness, compassion, humility, gentleness, mercy, patience,
perseverance (Rom 13:12-14; Eph 4:17-24; Col 3:8-14).
The “Jesus Creed” of loving God and others is the heart of our moral lives as they are
transformed by God’s Spirit.
The Direction of the Book
The shape of this book will address the life of love and wisdom to be lived out as
Christians—not only as virtuous persons, but as Christians in community and in society and
in a world of God’s creation as his stewards. Book one of our volume lays out preliminary
considerations to set the context of our discussion:
•
Love—the heart of biblical ethics
•
Law—God’s standards for human behavior
•
Sin—the violation of those standards
•
Virtues and vices—character qualities, positive or negative, developed over time
through choices humans make
•
Ethical alternatives—leading systems attempting to give a coherent account of ethical
knowledge and human duties
In book two, we organize the bulk of our work around the Ten Commandments and
ethical themes springing from them—loving God (commandments 1-4) and
loving others (commandments 6-10). The New Testament writers as well as Jesus himself
assumed the ongoing relevance of these commands (Mt 19:17-19; 1 Tim 1:8-10; Jas 2:8-11).
However, these commands are now given true shape by Jesus Christ, who is both
the goal or fulfillment of the Mosaic law, as well as its completion or terminus (Rom 10:4).
Believers in Christ now live according to the “law of the Spirit” (Rom 8:2) and “the law of
Christ” (Gal 6:2). Why? Because Christ has taken Israel’s (and humanity’s) curse of the law
on himself (Gal 3:13), bringing an end to exile with God. As a result, God’s people—no
longer a national, ethnic entity—are not “under the law” of Moses (1 Cor 9:20), being
subject to its curses and judgments. That said, certain moral features found within the Mosaic
law are fundamental to our life as God’s people in Christ. The gift of the indwelling Holy
Spirit—unlike earlier boundary markers such as circumcision and food laws—is what marks
out the renewed humanity in Christ. Those who belong to Christ have the Spirit. They are not
defined by a former this-worldly orientation (“in the flesh”), but they participate in a new
sphere of life and are given a new identity by the Spirit (Rom 8:9). As they live out their
lives in Christ, they bear the Spirit’s fruit, against which there can be no true law (Gal 5:22-
23).
Beyond the framework of the Ten Commandments, we then discuss three matters that
require more detailed attention:
•
The Christian and society
•
An approach to handling ethical issues on which Christians differ
•
Discerning the will of God in nonethical matters
Furthermore, our approach will assume the normativity of Scripture’s ethical teachings
unless Scripture itself modifies the teaching. Primarily, we have in mind how the Old
Testament comes to be fulfilled and reinterpreted through Jesus himself, who takes it up and
incorporates certain aspects of it into his own teaching—as do the apostles in their writings
(see part two on “Law”). At some points, our approach will suggest what may be less
demanding in places than other contemporary evangelical views—at others, more
demanding. Historical passages may be used to reinforce the teaching of Scripture, but the
mere recording of an event without a biblical judgment as to its ethics will not be used to
establish standards of behavior. And we take the historical actions of God/Christ in the
Scriptures as morally justifiable.[4] We disagree with moral relativism that sees morality as a
mere reflection of the accidents of history and culture. On the other hand, we affirm
objective moral truths and duties—rooted in the good, loving character of the God who
commands. And these duties are universally binding, whether people know them or not,
whether people accept them or not. (That is the meaning of “objective.”)
Now, some Christian thinkers claim that universally binding moral laws found in
Scripture can come into genuine conflict (sometimes called “conflicting absolutists”), but we
believe that God’s moral laws or demands do not genuinely conflict with one another. Rather,
they stand in a hierarchy or order of duties. (We explore this in greater detail later in the
book.)
Perhaps another important distinction is important here: “absolute” and “objective.”
Some moral demands are absolute—not to rape or torture babies for fun. Here’s another
absolute duty: “One ought to promote the kingdom of God.”[5] On the other hand, some
moral demands—“keep your promises” or “do not deceive”—are objective, but not strictly
absolute or exceptionless in the face of other moral principles to consider. Ethicists call
these prima facie duties—that is, all things being equal, you keep your promises and don’t
deceive. In cases of supreme emergency, as when innocent human lives are at stake,
deceiving Nazis would be morally permitted (as we later argue). Not all Christians will agree
here, and we will do our best to assess the biblical text as it bears on these topics.
We also hold to a “transcendental” ethic rather than one anchored in the empirical world
(science, nature) or in the human, whether as an individual or as a species—though we
should still be good students of human nature and human behavior. Furthermore, this is no
mere impersonal Platonic ethic—a duty to some abstract “forms” of “goodness” or “justice.”
Rather, it is profoundly personal; ethics is rooted in the tripersonal, perfect being who is both
the source of goodness and the true object of creaturely worship and love. We could call this
“theological ethics.”
Though we will not analyze the various theological systems, the position will be
indicated when the difference in viewpoint brings conflict in deciding an ethical issue. In our
longing for the eschaton, when seeing dimly will give way to knowing as we are known (1
Cor 13:12), we acknowledge that Christians of different persuasions disagree on a variety of
ethical issues. This is why we have “three (or four or five) views” books on divorce and
remarriage, Christians and politics, the sabbath, war and pacifism, law and gospel, and the
like. We recognize the place of mystery—that there are “secret things” that belong to the
Lord (Deut 29:29). We also acknowledge that God has revealed himself in progressive
fashion, first in the Old Testament but now more fully through Christ and the apostles. Even
so, we await God’s final revelation to clarify these points of conflict and disagreement. In
this book, we will seek, as best as we can, to let the Bible set its own agenda, and will avoid
imposing a logically deduced system of ethics on the biblical data.
What study could be more important for Christians than fulfilling the purposes of God for
their lives—a will that is for our good and our well-being (Deut 6:24; 10:13)? We turn now
to the exciting study of guidance on living wisely, faithfully and obediently. While we do
touch on the topic of growing in Christlikeness, that is not our primary focus.[6] In order to
become like Christ by the power of the Spirit, we must consider carefully what kind of
people we should be like in our thinking, behavior and character.
1Defining Love
The Beatles sang, “All you need is love.” Properly understood, they were absolutely
right! Love sums up our duty to God and to neighbor, and what greater gift could we receive
than the very love of God? Love is the defining characteristic of God (“God is love,” 1 Jn
4:8), and God is the very foundation for this “love God—love others” biblical ethic. But
what is love?
The English word love presents us with a problem:
“I love hot dogs and milkshakes.”
“I love baroque music.”
“John loves Mary.”
“For God so loved the world.”
Despite centuries of the widespread use of Scripture and its emphasis on God’s love, our
English word love is still inadequate.
Whether among the Kpelle of Liberia or the Siriono, hidden away in the jungles of the
upper Amazon, translators have wrestled with how to translate the biblical conception of
love. Perhaps it is so difficult to express because it has been so little lived and thus never
assigned a name. When the translator was seeking to put into the Siriono language,
“Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 Jn 4:11), he uncovered
the root of the universal human problem.
“The Siriono will never do that,” Echobe, his Christian informant, said.
“No, by yourselves you can’t. But God is the one who causes us to love each other.”
Echobe answered, “We Siriono say, ‘That’s just the way we are,’ and keep right on
fussing, fighting and ignoring God’s Word. Even if God helps us, it’s not probable that we
will love each other.” No wonder the word is missing in every tongue!
Yet God’s entire will for what people should be and do hangs on this command, “You
shall love.” What, then, does God expect of us?
The Biblical Definition of Love
First, a little history on the word love. Ancient Greeks had four different words for love—
philia, eros, storgē and agapē. During the fourth century B.C. the Greeks had come to
use agapē as their standard word. One reason for this was that another word for love—philia
—was in some cases taking on the additional meaning of “kiss.”
The Bible doesn’t give us a tidy or rigid distinction between philia and agapē, despite the
popularization of this notion in much Christian literature: “friendship” (philia) versus
“commitment” (agapē). The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint)
used the verbs phileō and agapaō interchangeably to translate the verb ’āhab (“love”).
[1] Jacob’s lopsided love for Joseph is agapaō (Gen 37:3). Although Amnon “loved” (agapaō)
Tamar, he would rape her (2 Sam 13:1), but when he raped her, he “hated her with a very
great hatred” (2 Sam 13:15). Proverbs 8:17 uses both words interchangeably: “I love
[agapaō] those who love [phileō] me.”
This overlap is evident in the New Testament as well. Although both John 3:35 and John
5:20 read, “The Father loves the Son,” ones uses phileō while the other uses agapaō. The
Father also “loves” (phileō) Jesus’ disciples (16:27). In John, both “love” verbs are used for
the disciple “whom Jesus loved.”[2] And Demas abandoned Paul because he “loved”
(agapaō) the world (2 Tim 4:10). So, there is overlap in these two words, and we should be
careful not to press the distinction too strongly, even if agapē is used more often
than philia to depict God’s love.
The philosopher Aristotle referred to three categories of “friendship” (philia). Two of
these are inferior friendships. Not that they are bad or evil, but they are not ideal. They are
based on an advantage persons bring to each other. It can be a friendship based
on usefulness (you may find an intelligent student who can help you study for your physics
exam), or it can be based on the pleasure a person brings (you may enjoy watching
football games with someone who is a fan of the same team). But the ideal
or good friendship is based on equally virtuous persons who engage with each other in
virtuous activity; “a friend is another self,” Aristotle said.
Aristotle offers some insights that parallel what Jesus has to say about friendship in John
15:12-15. Jesus said that the greatest display of love (agapē) is laying down one’s life for his
friends (philōn)—a picture of virtuous equals. Indeed, Christ called his disciples “friends”
(philous) rather than “slaves” (doulous) because he told them what he learned from his
Father. Yet there are differences between Jesus and his disciples. In friendship with Christ,
there is not a pure reciprocity: “You are My friends if you do what I command you” (Jn
15:14). Of course, we cannot tell Jesus “and you are my friend if you do what I tell you”! In
fact, on the same evening in the upper room, Jesus told the disciples he was their “teacher”
and “Lord” (Jn 13:13-14). But the implication in this teaching is that we are true friends with
God through Christ (cf. Jas 2:23; 4:4)—even though we fall far short of God’s virtuous
perfections. And in Christ’s own ministry, he was known as a “friend of . . . sinners” (Mt
11:19). What greater friendship could there be than with the Father or Jesus Christ whom he
sent into the world!
By looking at the friendship God has shown us, we come to see biblical love is a self-
giving commitment or devotion—whether to God or fellow humans. Our love must be
properly ordered, however. Greater love is due to God than to our fellow human beings, no
matter how closely related or virtuous they are.
Love toward God will exhibit single-mindedness (“purity of heart”), obedience and
worship. On the human level, love toward others means sacrificing for their well-being
without the motivation of personal gain.
There are both internal and external elements in the biblical concept of love. Love is a
noun that may indicate a particular kind of feeling, but it is also a verb that emphasizes how
we should behave and how we should orient our mindset. The internal aspect focuses on
emotion, disposition, motive. The external aspect focuses on volition, choices, actions, a way
of life.
Internal aspects of love. In the Old Testament, love speaks of a spontaneous feeling that
impels self-giving. This was true both for God and humans. When a human “loved” God, it
meant to have pleasure in God, striving impulsively after him, seeking God for his own sake.
From God’s side, the warm, strong feeling of affection that characterizes a healthy parent-
child relationship is taken as a picture of how God the Father relates to Israel, his son. Love
is the foundation of the covenant relationship. If the legal, covenantal aspect of the
relationship is strong in the father-son analogy, the passionate loving-kindness of a good
marriage is strong in the picture of God the husband and Israel the wife. The climactic
revelation of this love relationship is seen in the prophet Hosea and his well-loved harlot-
wife. The same analogy of father-son, bridegroom-bride continues in the New Testament,
focusing on the warm affection and unfailing bonds between two who love each other deeply.
But the internal aspect of love is more than a feeling. It is a characteristic of life, a
disposition. Old Testament scholars seem to have a problem in translating another Hebrew
word, ḥesed. Some translations speak of loving-kindness (KJV), some of steadfast
love (ASV, RSV, ESV), some of constant love (GNT). Indeed, the love of God is steadfast,
unfailing, never-changing, faithful to his covenant promises. This is a committed love—not a
sometime thing, tentative and sporadic, but from generation to generation, from age to age.
This unending love is faithful through all kinds of circumstances, even rejection. Biblical
love, then, is not a passing emotion, but a way of life, a disposition, a relationship of
permanent commitment to the welfare of another.
There is yet another element in the internal aspect of biblical love: loving feelings
motivate actions. In fact, it is not too much to say that love is the only motive. At the root of
every choice, every action a person takes, lies love—whether for self, for others, for God, or
in combination. But love—even disordered love—shapes behavior.
As we note later in the book, selfishness is not the same as self-interest. We feed
ourselves because of self-interest (an appropriate expression of self-love); out
of selfishness, some amass wealth, refusing to consider how they may help (an inappropriate
expression of self-love). So when we speak of the “glory of God,” this is not, strictly
speaking, a motive. We are designed to function properly in loving and serving God, who is
worthy of our worship. But in committing ourselves to the worship-worthy triune God, we
also find joy and fulfillment in this relationship as a by-product (Ps 16:11; 63:7). To obey
God is for our good (Deut 10:13). Love for God is not in conflict with an appropriate sense
of self-interest or self-love. We will look at this more closely below.
Our focus on the internal aspects of love is immediately shifted to the external by the
term motive. Motivated to what? To act. So we now turn from love as an inner response to
love as a description of how a love-motivated person behaves.
External aspects of love. We are quite familiar with the image of “falling” in love—and,
somehow, falling out of love. Love is understood as feeling. Yet the Bible emphasizes what
love does more than how love feels: “God so loved the world that he gave” (Jn 3:16 niv); the
Son of God “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20 niv). Biblical love refers to a free
and decisive act determined by the subject himself—not by the drawing power of the object,
as with passionate eros, familial love or the warm mutuality of friendship. The primary
characteristic of biblical love is commitment to act for the well-being of another.
In contemporary Western culture, “I don’t feel like doing that” often implies “I’m not
obligated to do that.” By contrast, in the New Testament, as in the Old, loving is often linked
with obeying—the outward response of an inward condition of love. We are commanded to
love. “You shall love the LORD your God You shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Mt
22:37-39; cf. Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5). “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn
14:15 ESV). “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 Jn 5:3 ESV;
cf. 2 Jn 6). The first question Scripture asks is not, how do you feel about this person? but
rather, what choices must you make concerning this person? Christ commands us to love,
pray for and do good to our enemy—despite our negative feelings (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27).
Of course, feelings are only one facet of who we are. That is why we train children to
apologize when they have hurt another person—to make peace even though they
don’t feel like doing so. This is part of training them in setting aside feelings to pursue
reconciliation and forgiveness. A human being is a multifaceted whole who cannot be
divided up into intellect, will and emotions. However, since a whole person does function
both volitionally and emotionally, it is proper for us to say that the will “controlled” one
action and the emotions “controlled” another. Yet one can will to act contrary to the impulse
of one’s emotions. Jesus did this when his emotions cried out, “Father . . . let this cup pass
from Me” (Mt 26:39). Yet he chose the Father’s will, contrary to what he wanted, or how he
felt. From the Bible’s viewpoint, the choice to act lovingly, not the intensity of the feeling, is
the test and ultimate proof of love. The concept of volitional love overriding affectional love
is of paramount importance, for we may not be able to control our emotional response. But
by the grace of God we can choose to act lovingly, no matter how we feel.
So those who claim that this emphasis on will over emotions is dishonest and not being
“true” to oneself are mistaken. To assume it is deceptive if one does not act in conformity
with one’s feelings is to reduce personhood to emotion. Yes, each of us is a person with
feelings, but also with the capacity to choose, to honor commitments, to use one’s reason, to
consider one’s primary obligations to God. To be honest to myself means I must be honest to
my whole self before God—to act in conformity with his will and my commitment to him. To
truly know ourselves as humans, John Calvin rightly affirmed, we must first truly know
God’s character and his priorities for us. This is indeed a liberating truth—I can choose to act
for the welfare of another no matter how I feel about him or about the action God desires of
me.
Too many misguided parents misunderstand this point. Honesty does not demand that a
son tell his father in anger, “I hate you”—or express some other unworthy feeling. Love, the
virtue of self-control and wisdom will not permit it. For every disciple, loving obedience to
God will have concern for relationships and for the feelings of others; the believer should
look to God’s grace to deal with a hateful spirit and to choose to act in consistently loving
ways. The loving act does not cancel the pain of previous hurts or the guilt of hostile
feelings, but it is a start in the right direction.
To say that acting lovingly takes precedence over the emotion of love does not mean that
biblical love is exhausted by acting lovingly. Without the emotion, love can be authentic, but
it is not complete. If we act in love, ordinarily the affection will follow. Thus one can love in
a biblical, active sense, without liking. In fact, it is required that we act lovingly no matter
how we feel. The vivid Cantonese expression for this is “swallowing a dead cat”!
Love-in-action has both a negative and a positive aspect. The so-called Silver Rule
speaks of refraining from harming—that is, do no harm, or “Do not do to others what you do
not want others to do to you.” The great Chinese master Confucius and the great Jewish
master Hillel taught this. It is true, of course—that is how love behaves. But this is only a
faint shadow of the Golden Rule, that we should do to others as we would have them do to us
(Mt 7:12)—a rephrasing of “love your neighbor as yourself.” Biblical love is positive and
active—constantly planning and acting for the welfare of others. To refrain from killing one’s
enemy is a loving thing, but to sacrifice and show kindness for an enemy is true, Godlike
love (Mt 5:44-45).
In fact, the Silver Rule can easily become the very opposite of biblical love. This is
highlighted in a culture where the Silver Rule has been dominant. A Japanese philosopher,
Kitamori, tells us that the Silver Rule lies at the base of a strong Japanese characteristic:
disentanglement. To refrain from harming another is best achieved by staying clear of him.
So the Japanese characteristic is to assume incredible obligations for those to whom one is
inevitably related (family, work) but to remain adamantly aloof, disentangled from all other
responsibility. But love deliberately entangles itself—the very thing God has done! As N. T.
Wright often says, God has stepped into our world, getting his feet dirty and hands bloody.
Biblical love becomes inextricably involved—and at great cost.
An emerging definition of love, then, is an affection, or a desire for the welfare of another
that moves to a commitment to act for her well-being. Ordinarily, this is the way love moves,
from attitude to action. Jesus was moved with loving compassion when he saw the distressed
multitudes, prompting him to call his disciples to pray for laborers to reach them (Mt 9:36-
38). But when the internal aspects are missing, one can begin with loving action, the
external, and leave the feeling to tag along as it will. For example, we can begin to pray for
our enemies and do practical good for them (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27). And this is not an aberration,
an undesirable last resort. No, acting lovingly without the feeling of love can be of the very
essence of biblical love—that which causes it to stand out in bold contrast to ordinary human
love. We call it sacrificial love. Thus love may flow either direction—joyfully from affection
to action or painfully across the bridge of the cross—“nevertheless,” no matter how I long
for some other way, “not my will, but yours be done” (Lk 22:42 ESV).
If the internal aspects (love as affection and as motive) lead to a disposition that is
characterized by a consistently loving attitude, the external aspects (love as choice and
action) will lead to a loving way of life. But this way of life, by definition, cannot be
expressed in isolation. Love demands a second party. We have concentrated thus far on the
one loving, rather than on the one loved. How do the two relate? Ideally, of course, love is
mutual. Affection is met with affection; loving acts are reciprocated.
Reciprocal Love and Nonreciprocal Love
Some disparage reciprocal love, calling it “need-love” or even “swap-love.” They say it
is unworthy to expect or even to desire a return on one’s investment of love in another. But it
is easy to become more “spiritual” than the Bible. C. S. Lewis speaks to this:
We must be cautious about calling Need-love “mere selfishness.” Mere is always a dangerous
word. No doubt Need-love, like all our impulses, can be selfishly indulged. A tyrannous and
gluttonous demand for affection can be a horrible thing. But in ordinary life no one calls a
child selfish because it turns for comfort to its mother. Every Christian would agree that a
man’s spiritual health is exactly proportional to his love for God. But man’s love for God,
from the very nature of the case, must always be very largely, and most often be entirely, a
Need-love. This is obvious when we implore forgiveness for our sins or support in our
tribulations. . . . It would be a bold and silly creature that came before its Creator with the
boast, “I’m no beggar. I love you disinterestedly.”[3]
Indeed, God himself expects a “return on his investment.” He longs and desires to be
loved, as we see clearly in the book of Hosea (cf. also Mt 22:37; Jn 4:23; Rev 3:20). But the
difference is this: He does not make a loving response the condition for giving love (Rom
5:6-8), and God’s love is characterized by “enemy love” (Mt 5:43-48). Of course, this runs
against our human grain. C. S. Lewis captured this in his poem “As the Ruin Falls.”
Speaking from the vantage point of human fallenness, Lewis affirms that often lofty talk of
love is more like a scholar’s parrot that can “talk Greek.” Lewis confesses he’s never had a
selfless thought in his life, that he is “mercenary and self-seeking through and through” and
“cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin.”[4]This self-centeredness is what Christ came
to transform, which Lewis himself had also come to experience.
Sheer uncommitted eros to the ancient Greek, and to the modern person as well, is
passionate love that desires the other purely for self. As fallen humans, our inclination is to
continue to give only so long as we receive—or so long as we hope to receive. But God’s
kind of love is not preoccupied with the question, what can I get? but, what can I give? It is
not, how well am I loved? but rather, how well do I love?
Thus the focus of biblical love is on the quality of the subject, the loving character of the
one loving—not on the quality of the object or its worthiness of love. Jesus spells this out in
great detail with many examples (Lk 6:27-35). He teaches that to love those who love us is
nothing great. It is when we choose deliberately to love those who do not deserve it that we
have reflected divine love—a love that sends rain and sunshine on the unrighteous and evil,
not just the good. This is what it means to be “merciful” (Lk 6:36) or “perfect” just as the
Father is (Mt 5:48); when we love our enemies, we resemble God in his perfect love.
Yet the ideal is reciprocal love, each finding in the other abundant reason to appreciate, to
feel drawn to, to be overwhelmed by the desire to give. We give because we want to, not
because we have to—we delight in the loved one. Then we rejoice in receiving from the one
loved. When the object is not lovable, or the emotion is not present, it is then that the
character of the giving lover shines in greatest splendor. Biblical love, then, is an affectionate
disposition that motivates the lover to consistently act for the welfare of another, whether or
not the other deserves it or reciprocates.
We have tried to sketch out the biblical meaning of love. But the length and breadth and
depth and height of it (Eph 3:18-19) stretch far beyond our reach. What shall we do? Often,
to understand an abstract idea or a large concept it is necessary to define by description or
demonstration. How good that God has given us both.
Love Defined by Description
The most well-known description of love was penned by Paul (1 Cor 13). Notice that he
gives examples of the internal but also the external: love’s attitude and disposition, but also
love’s activity. On the one hand love does not boast, is not proud or self-seeking, keeps no
record of wrongs, does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always trusts and hopes.
On the other hand, love takes action: it is patient and kind, is not rude and quick-tempered,
always protects, and always perseveres.
Scripture is filled with many other descriptions of love. Love is without hypocrisy (Rom
12:9; 2 Cor 6:6; 1 Pet 1:22), works no ill for others (Rom 13:10), will lay down its life for
another (Jn 15:13), takes the servant’s role (Gal 5:13), is brotherly (Rom 12:16; 1 Thess
4:9; Heb 13:1).
Though direct descriptions of love are plentiful enough to challenge for a lifetime, the
indirect descriptions seem all but exhaustless. Consider the teachings on what have been
called the “reciprocal verbs” of the New Testament. Not only are we told to love one another
thirteen times (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; Rom 13:8; Gal 5:13; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9; 1 Pet 1:22; 1
Jn 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11-12; 2 Jn 5), we are commanded to have the same care one for another (1
Cor 12:25), to receive one another (Rom 15:7), to be affectionate to one another (Rom
12:10), to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Pet
5:14), to wait for one another (1 Cor 11:33), to be kind one to another (Eph 4:32), to prefer
one another (Rom 12:10), to forbear one another in love (Eph 4:2; Col 3:13), to forgive one
another (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13). Furthermore, we are not to judge one another (Rom 14:13),
speak evil of one another (Jas 4:11), lie to one another (Col 3:9), “bite” one another (Gal
5:15), provoke one another (Gal 5:26) or complain against one another (Jas 5:9).
But this is only part of it. Love requires that we submit to one another (Eph 5:21; 1 Pet
5:5); everyone is actually a member one of another (Rom 12:5; Eph 4:25); we are to live in
harmony one with another (Rom 12:16; 15:5); we are to edify one another (1 Thess 5:11),
exhort one another (Heb 3:13; 1 Thess 5:11), admonish one another (Rom 15:14; Col 3:16),
sing to one another (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16), encourage one another (1 Thess 4:18; 5:11),
confess sins to one another (Jas 5:16), serve one another (Gal 5:13; 1 Pet 4:10), wash one
another’s feet (Jn 13:14), show hospitality toward one another (1 Pet 4:9), stimulate one
another to love and good works (Heb 10:24), pray for one another (Jas 5:16) and bear one
another’s burdens (Gal 6:2). Incredible as this list may be, it is only one of any number of
teachings in Scripture that describe the attitudes and behavior of love.
Perhaps the most extensive descriptions of love are embedded within the commands of
Scripture. Our next section addresses the topic of law and love, but at this point, let us agree
that the commands of Scripture reveal God’s will for those to whom they are addressed and
that his ultimate will is that we be like him in moral character (Gal 4:19). Since “God is
love” it should come as no surprise that the entire Old Testament revelation of God’s will for
humanity hangs on the law of love (Mt 22:37-40). After stating the Golden Rule, Jesus
concluded, “For this is [the essence of] the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12). Paul repeats the
thought: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself’” (Gal 5:14 ESV). Again he says that this law of love sums up the Ten
Commandments (Rom 13:8-9). In short, the commands of Scripture indicate how love will
behave.
Yet Scripture goes beyond description to actually exemplifying and demonstrating love—
what we see in the incarnation, life and atoning death of Jesus of Nazareth.
Love Demonstrated
“God is love,” says John (1 Jn 4:8, 16). This is the basic difference between the biblical
concept of love and our concept of love. The Bible defines love by the nature of God. We
tend to define love by the nature of humanity.
To say that God is love does not mean that God equals love. Love does not describe God
exhaustively. He has other qualities, such as wisdom and justice; but this does not mean that
those characteristics in God’s nature violate love. God always acts lovingly, even in
judgment.
Again, “God is love” does not mean that love equals God. Love is not an abstract entity,
having existence as an object, let alone having warmth and personality. To say that love and
God are equivalent would deify love and make it some absolute concept. Perhaps one might
claim that God himself is subject to and judged by this standard outside himself. But just as
God’s attribute as Creator only makes sense if he has created, so love cannot exist in the
abstract but in relationship. Indeed, the triune God is the foundation and source of love. So it
is inaccurate to say that God is “a person.” Rather, God is a personal being—three mutually
loving and engaging persons in one being. Father, Son and Spirit are God-in-relation.
As a physical analogy, we can think of creatures in nature—two-headed snakes and
turtles or even inseparable conjoined twins—that have more than one distinct center of
awareness or consciousness within one being. Or consider the three-headed dog Cerberus of
Greek mythology. We could speak of the Trinity—a spiritual or soulish being—as three
personal centers of awareness and will as inseparably united, God in loving community. No
wonder love comes from God (1 Jn 4:7, 19)! And since love is rooted in God himself, true
human love is Godlikeness (1 Jn 4:16).
God was not obliged to love by some external “ought.” Loving is the way he is. This is
one of the greatest evidences for the Trinity. God the Father loves God the Son and God the
Holy Spirit from all eternity. Within the Trinity, love is other-directed. God the Son loves the
Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit loves the Son and the Father. Yet Christ’s “cry of
dereliction” from the cross—“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt
27:46 NIV)—reveals the other-directed love of God in another direction, toward fallen
human beings. Jesus, the Israelite who faithfully lived out Israel’s story, bore the curse
promised to a disobedient Israel (Deut 27)—indeed for a rebellious humanity. By hanging on
a tree, he bore our judgment, our exile, our alienation, our curse (Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13),
while experiencing a profound sense of abandonment by the Father.
Thus, the loving nature of God is the basis for his creative and redeeming activity. He
created humanity because he is love and desired a being designed on his own pattern so that
he could love that creature and be freely loved in return. When humanity rejected this loving
approach of God, breaking that relationship, God continued loving because God is love
by nature. And so we have the story of redemption. Love became incarnate. Thus all of life
finds meaning in being loved by God and loving him.
By his life, Jesus demonstrated flawlessly how Godlike love behaves, and in his death he
demonstrated the ultimate proof of love. He was our model—we can now see how we are to
“walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant
offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph 5:1-2 NIV). We now can see what it means to have “the
same mindset as Christ,”
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! (Phil 2:6-8 NIV)
“By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down
our lives for the brethren” (1 Jn 3:16 NKJV). Throughout the New Testament Christ’s love is
given as our model: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved
you” (Jn 15:12 ESV).
All of Christ’s life puts on display God’s loving character (cf. Jn 14:9), but the cross of
Christ demonstrates the love of God more clearly than any other act of any other person in all
history.
Christ himself is the perfect, living model of God’s character; but God graciously re-
creates that character in other people who in turn demonstrate true love. In fact, “By this all
men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).
Here is a modern demonstration of Christ-like love:
Pastor Son was . . . a mild, little man—less than five feet tall—whose two great joys in life
were his two sons, Tong-In and Tong-Sin. During the war Tong-In, like his father, had
refused to worship at the Shinto shrines and had been thrown out of school by the Japanese.
After the war, at twenty-four years of age, he went back to high school In October 1948,
a wild Communist uprising swept through his part of South Korea and Communist youths
seized the school in a reign of terror. A nineteen-year-old Communist leveled a pistol at
Tong-In and ordered him to renounce his Christian faith. But Tong-In only pleaded with him
to turn Christian himself and try the Christian way of love. Tong-Sin, the younger brother,
rushed up to save him. “Shoot me,” he shouted, “and let my brother live.” “No,” cried Tong-
In, “I am the elder. I am the one who should die. Shoot me.” The Communist shot them both.
. . . Two days later the uprising was smashed and the murderer of the two boys was caught
and brought to trial. Pastor Son found him with his hands tied behind his back, about to be
condemned to death. He went to the military commander. “No amount of punishment will
bring back my two sons,” he said, “so what is to be gained by this? Let me, instead, take the
boy and make a Christian of him so that he can do the work in the world that Tong-In and
Tong-Sin left undone.” Stunned at first by the proposal, the authorities reluctantly consented
to release the young man into the custody of the father of the boys he had killed, and Pastor
Son took him home.[5]
Not only does God reveal the nature of love in the pages of Scripture, but he graciously
demonstrates his loving character in his eternal Son partaking in flesh and blood to identify
with us and die for us. And the children of God across the ages in every land serve as a
further demonstration of Christlike love—an inspiration to the rest of us to do likewise.
2The Objects and Conflicts of Love
The Objects of Biblical Love
The vast array of potential loves can be divided into four groups: love for God, love for
others, love for self and love for things. It is quite possible to love many people and even
many things at once without any sense of competition or conflict. But often there is conflict
among the loves, and nothing can be more painful and destructive. First let us identify the
objects of love and then turn to the biblical way for resolving the conflict.
Love for God. Christ tells us that this is the supreme objective: “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart” (Mt 22:37 NIV). This is the first command, first in importance, and the
greatest, superseding all others as the controlling authority of life. Thus the Old Testament
command (Deut 6:5) identified by the teachers of Israel as the ultimate, comprehensive
summary of God’s will for humanity was affirmed by Jesus the Messiah as the most
important commandment of all.
How does a mere human being love the infinite God? By the loving adoration of worship,
by unceasing thanksgiving, by a life of steadfast obedience, by sharing his companionship
and exulting in the endless profusion of his gifts. To love God is the goal of creation and
redemption and the very acknowledgment of ultimate reality.
Indeed, to love God is the first and great commandment, there is another commandment
—one on which “the Law and Prophets” depend (Mt 7:12)—to love others. And one cannot
obey the first without obeying the second (Mt 22:34-40; 1 Jn 3:11-18; 4:19–5:1).
Love for others. Jesus identified two commandments on which all else depends, and the
second, he says, is very like the first: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:39 NIV;
cf. Lev 19:18). Love for God is the supreme command, but the demands of other-love are not
equal for all people. Consider the various levels of responsibility or commitment.
When God created the male, he judged that it “is not good that the man should be alone”
(Gen 2:18)—even though he had daily companionship with God. And God created a partner
to complement him. The primary horizontal relationship on earth is the husband-wife union.
As Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, so a husband is to love his wife (Eph
5:25); wives, in turn, are to love their husbands (Tit 2:4).
Then comes love for one’s own family: parents, children, brothers, sisters. So important
is this relationship that one who does not care for his own family is worse than an unbeliever
(1 Tim 5:4, 8).
But there is a family beyond one’s human family. The Old Testament emphasized
responsibility toward one’s fellow Israelite—and in the new covenant community, believers
have an extended spiritual family in Christ (Mk 10:29-30; Lk 8:19-21). Believers are
commanded to love each other as evidence of genuine faith (1 Jn 3–5). Showing love to
brothers and sisters in Christ is one of John’s three “tests” to assess or “know” where one
stands in one’s faith (1 Jn 3:14)—the others being doctrinal orthodoxy about Christ’s
incarnation (1 Jn 4:2) and obedience to God’s commands (1 Jn 3:24; 5:2).[1] Paul concurs:
“Let us do good to all men”—yes—“and especially to those who are of the household of
faith” (Gal 6:10 RSV). This is the New Testament pattern (Jn 15:12, 17; 1 Pet
1:22; 2:17; 3:8). It draws the altogether startling picture of a group of people, the church, that
is, a true family bound together by closer blood ties than human blood relations—the blood
(i.e., death) of Christ. It is the picture of a people bound by love in interdependent
responsibility for one another in every facet of life: spiritual, physical, emotional, material. It
is reminiscent of the theme in Charles Dickens’s Nicholas Nickleby: “They came to see that
family need not be defined merely as those with whom we share blood, but as those for
whom we would give our blood.” Paul concurs: “Let us do good to all men”—yes—“and
especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:10 RSV). This is the New
Testament pattern (Jn 15:12, 17; 1 Pet 1:22; 2:17; 3:8). It draws the altogether startling
picture of a group of people, the church, that is, a true family bound together by closer blood
ties than human blood relations—the blood (i.e., death) of Christ. It is the picture of a people
bound by love in interdependent responsibility for one another in every facet of life: spiritual,
physical, emotional, material. It is reminiscent of the theme in Charles Dickens’s Nicholas
Nickleby: “They came to see that family need not be defined merely as those with whom we
share blood, but as those for whom we would give our blood.”[2] But biblical love does not
end there.
The Old Testament theme of “neighbor love” was never restricted in Scripture to fellow
Israelites. The foreigner was included (Lev 19:33). But Jewish people, being human, wanted
to restrict the application of the sweeping demands of love. No wonder one lawyer who
wanted to justify his unloving behavior asked Jesus: “And who is my neighbor?” (Lk 10:29).
Jesus turned his question upside down (or right side up) with the story of the half-breed,
despised Samaritan, who became a neighbor to the one who needed him. Neighbor does not
really mean “anyone” or “everyone.” It is so easy to love “humanity” but ignore or even
despise the one nearby.
Love is not mere tolerance, a warm feeling for everyone “out there” or even special
indignation for the oppressed in some distant place. It must be for one’s neighbor—the
person within reach. But love as action must be for someone who needs what I have and can
give (Gal 6:10). Neighbor-love extends to a wider circle than love of a fellowship, just as
love of a fellowship extends beyond family love. And it is not restricted to worthy neighbors.
It includes even one’s enemy.
Love for one’s enemy was taught in the Jewish law (Ex 23:5; Job 31:29-30; Prov
24:17; 25:21), but no one took it very seriously. In fact, Jesus says that tradition held it was
all right to hate your enemy (Mt 5:43). But he taught love of enemy with a force and
consistency that startled the Jewish world. He startled the mindset of the Greco-Roman
world as well. This was unique: Love your enemies. If you cannot feel all that warm about
them, you can choose to act lovingly: pray for them, do good to them, speak well of them
(Mt 5:43-48; Lk 6:27-38). But the world-shattering message was not that he taught this way
of life—incredible as that is—but that he loved his own enemies just that way: “But God
shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8 RSV).
And we are to love our enemies just that way.
Loving God and loving others—this sums up the whole duty of humans. But some
contend that there is a third command—to love self. But the sentence structure will not bear
such an all-too-common interpretation. Love for self is assumed, not commanded, in
both Matthew 22:39 and Ephesians 5:28-29. Let us consider love for self more closely.
Love for self. Paul Vitz, professor emeritus of psychology at New York University, has
documented in a convincing manner that contemporary psychology, in seeking to make
people whole, is committed to the “cult of self-worship.” Apparently in accommodation to
this pervasive therapeutic atmosphere, there is a tidal wave of Christian promotion of self-
love as the biblical norm, so that self-discovery, self-affirmation, self-assertion, self-
fulfillment, self-actualization, self-worth, self-esteem and self-importance are all advocated
as worthy objectives for the Christian. In fact, we are told, we cannot be whole without them.
How does this fit with the Bible’s injunctions to self-sacrifice, self-crucifixion—indeed, with
the command to hate oneself (Lk 14:26)? Part of the problem is in the definition of “self-
love,” and part is a basic ideological difference.
The term self-love can be used to mean either “self-centeredness” or “self-interest.” If we
have in mind self-centeredness, no Christian would advocate it (cf. 2 Tim 3:2: “lovers of
self”); if we have in mind self-interest, we can affirm it up to a point. John Stott affirms that
self-love is a fact to be acknowledged, not a goal to be pursued.[3] We have noted that we
have a natural, indeed, God-given self-interest: we care for, feed and clothe our bodies; we
protect ourselves from danger. No, we are not commanded to love ourselves—we
are designed that way. So how we want to be loved becomes a measure by which we should
love others. Do I seek my neighbor’s good as I seek my own? Or does self-interest diminish
my seeking first the kingdom of God?
But doesn’t Christ say that people should hate themselves (Lk 14:26)? When we look at
the terms love and hate in the Old Testament, the idea of emotion is often not intended. God
did not feel animosity toward Esau and so choose Jacob over him (Is 9:10-13). No, God
chose the nation of Israel (Jacob) over Edom (Esau); God would fulfill his promise through
Israel, not any other nation. That God was choosing a particular nation for his historical
purposes is clear in Malachi: “How have you loved us [i.e., the nation of Israel]?” (Mal 1:2);
“[the nation of] Edom says, ‘We have been beaten down’” (Mal 1:4). Even in Genesis, the
Lord told Rebekah that two “nations” were in her womb (Gen 25:23). The same could be
said about God’s choosing (“loving”) the less respectable Judah, from whose tribe Messiah
would come, over the virtuous Joseph. To “hate” in this sense is to reject; to “love” is to
accept, affirm. When the time comes that love for parents and love for God come into
conflict, we must decide one way or the other. In the same way, we are called on to deny self
or to deliberately choose to reject our own selfish interests in favor of God’s interests or even
those of another person. Those who “love” their own life (their own self) are the ones who
affirm their own rights and self-interest at all costs. By doing so, they reject God’s claims.
Also, in the final analysis, they lose their own life—the very thing for which they were
grasping.
But doesn’t Scripture refer to God—and even the psalmist—“hating” sinners (Ps
5:5; 11:5; 139:21-22)? Yet God loves “the world” (Jn 3:16), doesn’t he? Isn’t Christ’s
sacrificial death for the sins of the “whole world”—the same “whole world” that lies in the
hands of the evil one (1 Jn 2:2; 5:19)? Simultaneous with this love is a sense in which God
hates—that is, his wrath is directed against those who oppose him (Jn 3:36); in the same
chapter, God’s shows love to those who oppose him through the gift of Jesus’ atoning death
for the world that opposes him (Jn 3:16). While Jesus’ own brothers were part of the wicked
“world” that is hostile to God, they were opposed to Jesus’ own kingdom purposes—and
under God’s wrath (“hate”). Jesus told them: “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me
because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” (Jn 7:7). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, his own
brothers didn’t believe in him (Jn 7:3), though they would become disciples after his
resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 15:7) and no longer part of the world.
In terms of self-love today, the contemporary notion is that wholeness begins with self-
affirmation and ends with self-fulfillment, whereas Scripture teaches that wholeness begins
with self-denial out of love for God and ends with God’s (and our) fulfillment. If
we begin with self-affirmation and make self-fulfillment the primary goal of life, it will elude
us. We will not find ultimate fulfillment in life—nor will God’s good purposes be fulfilled in
us. But if we make the fulfillment of God’s purposes in this world our goal (“hunger and
thirst for righteousness,” Mt 5:6), God will be satisfied and glorified, and we will find, as a
byproduct, the fulfillment of the purpose for which God created and redeemed us (we will be
“satisfied”). That is true self-fulfillment.
If people actually hate themselves emotionally, dislike themselves, they are abnormal.
And nonacceptance of self is indeed a great problem. Many psychologists seek to solve this
problem by convincing people that they are truly worthy or that they are not guilty. Their
failure is the fault of their environment or their inherited characteristics, for which they have
no responsibility. Self-worth psychology has come to dominate much evangelical counseling
theory and practice, as psychologist Jay Adams has documented.[4] The self-worth approach
identifies a nonbiblical source of the human problem, external to the person’s own moral
choices. According to this view, others have imposed a low view of self on such people and
thus diminished their potential, and possibly crippled them. Since the root problem is
inaccurately identified, a false solution also is provided. Building a high view of oneself is
not endorsed by Scripture; indeed, such a “solution” only compounds the problem. Sooner or
later hurting people will discover that they really are not all that important in the eyes of
others and that they truly are guilty.
The biblical solution to this problem is very different. It is the assurance that God
forgives and accepts us in Christ. We are responsible for what we do and what we have
become; we really are guilty and unworthy. But the guilt has been done away with. And if
God accepts us, we can certainly accept God’s judgment of us as the true and reliable one.
We human creatures seek security and significance, but all too often from various God
substitutes. But in God we find ultimate security through a relationship with God and
ultimate significance through a God-given purpose. We don’t need to love ourselves more.
Scripture teaches that we are created in the image of God and that we were created and
saved on purpose. Though we may not be important or significant to anyone else, we matter
to God. If only our self-image could be shaped by the fact that we are created in God’s
likeness, redeemed at infinite cost, and endowed with a unique purpose in life by God
himself!
This great self-discovery of who I am in Christ then frees me and makes me strong to
hate and exterminate the evil in myself and to sacrifice (self-denial) my own rights and even
my own welfare for others. Now I can gratefully accept what I am—and what I am becoming
—as God’s loving gifts.
From this comes a biblical concept of self-image. A “strong” self-image is that perception
of self which is true, which is most nearly aligned with the facts, including all the weakness
and corruption that is mine through the fall and all the glory that is mine by grace.
Self-love, then, properly defined, is recognized by Scripture as the way God made us. To
treat self in this way is to be in alignment with reality and thus to promote wholeness. As
believers in a fallen world, we live as in-betweeners, having already experienced some of the
blessings of the age to come—redemption, forgiveness, adoption, the gift of the Spirit. But
we are keenly aware that we have not yet received resurrection bodies—a transformed
physicality to dwell in a renewed creation in which there is no sickness, pain or death. In this
already/not-yet world, we deal with inner brokenness as well. God’s desire is not that we live
pain-free, tension-free lives, but that we become increasingly conformed to the image of
Christ (2 Cor 3:18). Pain often serves as a wake-up call or reminder of our human
brokenness and alienation from God so that we might seek “outside assistance” and turn to
God in repentance and faith (Lk 13:1-5). Indeed, to be shielded from these reminders of our
sin and brokenness would make God into a deceiver, propping us up with the false
impression that we do not really need God. In the words of theologian Vernon Grounds,
An individual, quite completely free from tension, anxiety, and conflict may be only a well-
adjusted sinner who is dangerously maladjusted to God; and it is infinitely better to be a
neurotic saint than a healthy-minded sinner. . . . Healthy-mindedness may be a spiritual
hazard that keeps an individual from turning to God precisely because he has no acute sense
of God Tension, conflict, and anxiety, even to the point of mental illness, may be a cross
voluntarily carried in God’s service.[5]
John Stott gives sound biblical guidance about self-denial and self-affirmation. First, we
should deny our fallen self—our laziness, self-sufficiency, lack of self-control. Yet we
should affirm our created self—including our human dignity, relationality, creativity, natural
gifts from a gracious God; while we are unworthy of God’s grace, he did not create
us worthless. Beyond this, as redeemed people of God, we are to affirm the re-created self—
that we are forgiven, adopted into God’s family, part of a new community in Christ, endowed
with spiritual gifts. Finally, as believers, we are called to deny certain good things as God
commands us—some good things like money, a job, a sport, or a hobby, which may stand in
the way of our service to God and his kingdom. By appropriate self-denial (losing our lives
for Christ’s sake), we will truly find our own true self in Christ (Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25).[6]
Are there other loves? Yes, the Bible appears to make room—just a little—for one other
reality: love for things.
Love for things. It is possible to have an appreciation for some object so intense as to be
called “love.” This can be either demonic, as in covetousness, or it can be legitimate, as in
the admiration of something beautiful. Such love can be seen most clearly in the love for a
great idea or a cause. The Bible does not speak directly to the question of love for inanimate
objects or ideals, other than to condemn such affection when it becomes idolatrous. But
Scripture does speak of kindness for animals (Ex 23:12; Deut 5:14; 22:4; 25:4; Prov 12:10),
and certainly human experience is replete with examples of love for some animal friend.
God, others, self, things: One may love all so long as they do not conflict. But what if
love for someone else conflicts with the love due God? What if my best interests and those of
my neighbor’s cannot coexist? How do we handle the conflict of loves?
Conflict of Loves
Paul commented that people generally seek their own interests rather than Christ’s—and
he highlighted Timothy as a notable exception (Phil 2:19-21). Even in the most altruistic of
humanistic ethics, concern for God is ignored with humans getting top priority. Biblical love
focuses on the centrality of God, the pivotal relationship. But how can I tell if I love God
supremely?
It is futile to try to decide whether we have as warm an affection for God as we do for a
parent or child, a wife or husband, but there is a way to tell which love is paramount. The
controlling love becomes quite evident when a confrontation comes. When the best interest
of another or ourselves and the best interest of God come into conflict, love must make a
choice.
Ordinary human love gives for another to a point. But when the cost of acting lovingly
gets too high, loving behavior ends. God’s kind of love is different. How can I tell whether I
truly love my neighbor as Christ would have me love? Ask the key question: Does my love
for self limit the expression of my love for the other person, or does my love for the other
limit the expression of my love for myself? Love is measured, not by the intensity of its
feeling, but by the sacrifice it stands ready to make. Or in our relationship with God, when
we are faced with the choice to cater to bodily desires or to discipline ourselves for the
purpose of godliness, which gets the priority?
Jesus indicated this when he said, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13 RSV). Often love is present without sacrifice, but so
long as there is a return benefit, there is no evidence that the love is truly other-love rather
than self-love. No matter what our emotional response, if we choose to sacrifice what we
perceive to be our own interests for the welfare of another, we have loved as God loved.
Sacrifice is God’s way of loving, though the world finds it beyond comprehension.
Fallen humans do not ordinarily want to get involved for someone else’s benefit. Above
all, they do not want to suffer loss for someone else. But this is not always the case. Sergeant
Dennis Weichel was a twenty-nine-year-old Rhode Island soldier serving in Laghman
Province of eastern Afghanistan. In March 2012, a military convoy was approaching a group
of Afghani children who were picking up shell casings on the road. They were moved out of
the way so that the convoy could pass unobstructed. However, a little Afghan girl ran back
out into the road to pick up more casings. Weichel saw the danger and sprang into action. He
pushed the girl to safety, but he himself was crushed by a sixteen-ton armored truck. This is a
picture of Godlike love: it chooses to get involved, even when it costs.
And yet the sacrifices we shrink from are not usually life-threatening: the sacrifice of a
parent to allow the child to be childish when she is young and to let her grow free when she
is older, the sacrifice of a child to allow his parent to “smother ’im with motherin’,” the
sacrifice by a spouse of his right to be right—all the small irritations of the daily routine. For
the conflict of interests to be resolved, who will make the sacrifice? Will I take up my cross
or nail others to theirs? It depends on whom I love more.
Love takes risks and makes great sacrifices, but it does not “enable.” That is, love does
not ignore destructive activity and its consequences, but, when possible, holds people
accountable for their actions. A young adult who still lives at home with his parents but treats
them disrespectfully, is a negative influence on younger siblings, disrupts family harmony
and refuses to engage in basic chores must be shown the door. That is the loving thing to do
for all concerned. Too often a woman may mistakenly tolerate all manner of abuse in the
name of being a “submissive wife”; rather she should remove herself from emotional and
physical harm. As Jesus reminded his disciples, there comes a time to shake the dust from
our feet rather than subject ourselves to unnecessary hostile treatment and rejection (Mk
6:11).
In love, then, there is a biblical hierarchy in which the lower must always yield to the
higher when they come in conflict. We rightly love God, the others in our lives and
ourselves. But if the response of love would be unloving to the higher relationship, the lower
must yield to the higher. Love for God trumps love for the other and especially love for self.
That’s how the conflict of loves must be resolved.
Love and Forgiveness
“That a man should always be ready to forgive has been called Jesus’ most striking
innovation in morality.”[7] Perhaps one of the most painful sacrifices that love makes is
forgiveness. To forgive is costly, for someone must pay the price of wrong. If I choose to
treat the person as if the wrong had never been done (forgive), then I may have to pay for it.
It is not just the sacrifice of ego—that seems to be painful enough. But in some way I absorb
the cost if I truly forgive. And I do not make the guilty party pay for it in installments
through petty insinuations.
When President Ford forgave Richard Nixon, he paid for it, they tell us, in the next
election. In Jesus’ parable in Matthew 18, a king forgives his servant his debt of ten thousand
talents (the equivalent of 160,000 years of daily wages!).[8] This magnanimous act is a costly
sacrifice. Even when the relationship is such that discipline is necessary, as with a parent and
child, forgiveness means full restoration without the haunting specter of subtle reminders.
Even where trust needs to be rebuilt, forgiveness can still be shown—as opposed to
constantly reminding the child of his disobedience or rebellion.
On the other hand, some people have the knack for making an accusation under the guise
of apologetic words: “I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive.” The net result of such
an “apology” is a double wound, one for your badness and a second for my own implied
innocence. An honest response might have been, “I wonder if you know how you sound?”
Or, better, “Here we are miscommunicating. What should we do next?” The best response, of
course, may well be silence and a cheerful moving ahead with the next topic or the business
at hand. We don’t have to be vindicated in every disagreement, even if we are convinced we
are in the right. Many times we should just let go rather than insisting on winning. Yes,
wisdom is required in judging whether to hold our ground as a matter of principle or to let
the matter go and preserve the relationship (Lk 12:13-14; cf. Prov 10:12). The painful way of
the cross calls us to true forgiveness—accepting the expense incurred by another’s sin.
Must I forgive if the other person does not repent and ask forgiveness? Jesus said, “If
your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (Lk 17:3). So we must forgive
the one who indicates regret for sin against us. That is when God forgives. But Christ on the
cross and Stephen when being stoned both prayed that God would not hold accountable those
who sinned against them, even though the murderers had not asked forgiveness (Lk
23:34; Acts 7:60). That said, as we note below, God’s willingness to forgive, though
universal (1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pet 3:9), is not unconditional. Repentance is required. Christ will
say to some, “Depart from me” (Mt 7:23; 25:41; Lk 13:27). God does not “simply forgive”;
justice demands repentance. In any event, an attempt at reconciliation is always my
responsibility, no matter who the chief wrongdoer was. Besides, unforgiveness is a cancer
that eats away at the spirit of the one who fails to forgive; so there is great healing value in
forgiveness as a way of life, no matter how the offenders in one’s life behave. And once we
make the choice to forgive, we may have to renew that commitment to forgive when feelings
of resentment or bitterness well up within us. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, but it
does mean not holding a person’s sin against him.
In the process of forgiveness, Lewis Smedes writes, we first experience hurt.And when
the hurt is extreme or acute, the tendency is to nurse this hurt and not let it go. It turns
to hate. Unless we let go of our hatred and forgive, then we ourselves become imprisoned by
this seething anger. Just as failure to confess our sins to God does damage to us (Ps 32:2-4).
It is only when we release the wrong a person has done against us that we can find healing—
and release from the prison we have built for ourselves and, if possible, reconciliation with
others. The Christian increasingly realizes that the grace to forgive is anchored in the God
who loves enemies and forgives.[9]
Not a few believers have wondered about the nature of God’s forgiveness: When God
promises that “their sin I will remember no more” (Jer 31:34), does this mean he can actually
forget? No, this statement should not be taken any more literally than when God says that
Judah’s idolatrous practices never entered his mind (Jer 19:5). Forgetting is
not actual but judicial. God cannot actually forget since this would compromise his
omniscience. No, when God forgives, he no longer holds our sin against us but reckons us
not guilty.
Another point: When Jesus tells his disciples to love and forgive their enemies, he is not
absolutizing this command. He denounces his opponents in very harsh—even damning—
terms in Matthew 23. Jesus himself did not absolutize turning the other cheek (see Jn 18:23)
any more than he abolished the judicial principle of proportionality (“an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth”) or all oath taking. Jesus exemplifies a spirit of remarkable forgiveness on
the cross (Lk 23:34), and he calls on us to have a generous spirit of forgiveness as well. Yet
even so, it is not absolute. First, for forgiveness to be complete, it presupposes the offender’s
repentance (“if he repents, forgive him” [Lk 17:3-4]). Second, even when Christ instructs his
disciples to forgive extravagantly—“seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22)—he continues saying
that those refusing to forgive will incur the wrath of their master and be “handed . . . over to
the torturers” (Mt 18:34). To make the point clear, Jesus says, “My heavenly Father will also
do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart” (Mt 18:35).
He uses strong words of unforgiveness when he says of Judas that it would have been better
for him not to have been born (Mk 14:21), and when he says that the “blasphemy against the
Spirit” (Mt 12:31) will not be forgiven. Third, it can be a misguided sentimentality—and a
gross injustice—for Christians to call for the forgiveness of the likes of Osama bin Laden
and other terrorists. We must ask: Is that our rightful place? Unlike the Son of God (Mk 2:5),
how can we simply forgive the offenses of others? What about the victims of their assaults?
Should we forgive terrorists while they are planning another attack? And does forgiveness
require that we no longer use force to stop them? Or, rather than intervening, do we wait till
terrorists and rapists have carried out their evil acts before we extend forgiveness to them?
Finally, we note below, the state—though ordained by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ—has a different role in God’s economy. Its business is not to forgive rapists or
murderers but rather to punish evildoers—though tempered with mercy when appropriate.[10]
Reconciliation is always the ideal to pursue, as it exemplifies the gracious activity of God
(Rom 5:10-11) and the goal of the disciple (Mt 5:9, 24). However, given the damage brought
about by humanity’s fall, reconciliation may not be possible even if forgiveness is genuinely
given. A wife whose husband has repeatedly committed adultery may truly forgive him. But
this does not entail being reconciled to him. The marriage covenant may have been so
profoundly violated that restoring even a minimal level of trust becomes impossible. A child
may have been sexually abused by her father; she may truly let go of her soul-damaging
resentment and forgive him, but that does not mean she can ever get close to him.
Reconciliation is the ideal, and it may not always be attainable, and it certainly cannot
come about without the repentance of the perpetrator. Whatever its shortcomings, South
Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission has served as a powerful
reminder that healing for racially motivated evils by whites against primarily blacks and
“colored” persons cannot be achieved without naming and owning one’s evil acts. Indeed,
this is the point of C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce—that enjoying God’s presence in the
afterlife cannot take place without repentance. It is our unconfessed sins that separate us
from God, not his unwillingness to forgive (Is 59:1-2).
Love, The Character of God and the Divine Image
Theologian Anders Nygren has called love “the centre of Christianity, the Christian
fundamental motif par excellence.”[11] Is this statement claiming too much for love? We have
seen that the kind of love that characterizes God is enemy-love. God lovingly initiates
reconciliation with his own enemies (Rom 5:6-10)—visibly demonstrated in Jesus’ sacrificial
death for us.
Great and sharp has been the contention over whether justice/righteousness or love is
paramount in God’s character. And how do his justice and his holy wrath against sin fit with
his love? Some hold that righteousness is the comprehensive description and that love is an
element of what is just or true. Others hold that love is the comprehensive category and that
righteousness is one facet of love.
Perhaps we gain insight from the Croatia-born Yale theologian Miroslav Volf. He once
thought that wrath, anger and judgment were beneath God—until he lived through the
nightmare years of ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia. He came to realize that his view of
God had been too low:
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn’t God love? Shouldn’t divine love be
beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That’s exactly
why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was
a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to
some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages
and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized
beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the
last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred
days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly
fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators’ basic
goodness? Wasn’t God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the
indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a
God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being
love. God is wrathful because God is love.[12]
As the apostle Paul wrote: “Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Rom 11:22).
Perhaps we can do no better than rejoice with the psalmist that “steadfast love and
faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other” (Ps 85:10 RSV). This
they did at the cross: when the Son of God died as our substitute, God met the demands of
his just character as well as displayed his sacrificial love for humankind. As John Stott said,
the essence of sin is humans taking the place of God whereas the essence of salvation is God
taking the place of humans.[13] Certainly it is true that God’s kind of righteousness cannot
exist without love, and God’s kind of love cannot exist without righteousness.
Yet it still could be argued that love is supremely important because it is not only
essential to the triune, relational God but is arguably God’s most notable characteristic. And
God has made us in his image and designed us to love. And without love, no one can claim
membership in the family of God (1 Jn 4:7-8). Indeed, it is love—not justice (or being just)
—that is the identifying virtue of the disciple of Christ (Jn 13:35; cf. Col 3:14). Out of the
love of the Trinity, God freely and graciously created a being that is not the “highest of the
animals” but a “little less than God” (Ps 8:5); humans are capable of companionship and
loving unity with God himself. God lovingly created these image bearers to commune or
“walk with” him (Gen 3:8) and to rule creation with him (Gen 1:28)—to be priests and kings
to God (cf. Rev 1:6; 5:10). Not only is this loving unity the central fact about God and the
purpose of creation; it is also the purpose of redemption in restoring the image humanity
marred. He did not restore humanity merely to prove his powers and defeat Satan. He was
out to fulfill the original purpose—nothing less than loving union with himself. “Behold, the
tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His
people, and God Himself will be among them” (Rev 21:3 NASB).
True love is so deep, so broad, so high that it is beyond understanding (Eph 3:18-19) and
so requires divine revelation for us to know it. Somehow it is related to “all the fullness of
God” (Eph 3:19)—that is, full maturity in Christ. But if Christ indeed lives in us through
faith, we can be so established in the experience of love that we have the power to
comprehend this greatest of all qualities (Eph 3:17-18).
The Incomparable Results of Love
The results of loving attitudes and behavior underscore the supreme importance of our
theme. God’s love for us provided life and salvation and now provides all that we need.
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . Neither death nor life, neither angels nor
demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor
anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ
Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:35, 38-39 NIV). How great the results of God’s love for us! But
what of our love for God?
When we love God with the centrality of our being, in our choices and affections, with
the concentration of all our mental powers, and with our own bodily strength (Mt 22:37), we
not only prove to be his children and bring pleasure to him, but we validate all the other
loves—friendship, family, erotic/romantic. Love for God opens the door for robust love all
around! If we fail to hold love for God as the ultimate love, we can easily damage and
diminish these other loves. For example, when parents put a child on the highest throne of
affection and sacrifice responsibilities to God and obedience to his will for that child, the
relationship to the child himself becomes warped and grotesque.
I (Robertson) enjoyed visiting the Nakamuras. God had rescued them from a miserable
life at the brink of divorce and brought them into the family of God’s people. Their six-year-
old son, Hideyaki, was a great playmate for our youngest. One day I asked if they had any
pictures of him. Did they! The first album, to my amazement, brought me only through the
first six months of Hideyaki’s life—pages and pages at his birth, pages for the first month
“birthday,” and then more pages for the first hundred days. The whole closet was full of
albums almost exclusively of Hideyaki. What affection for an only son! Gradually the
affection crowded out God’s place and, inevitably, began to erode the affection of the couple
for one another.
But perhaps Hideyaki at least would benefit? The last I heard, he had broken the hearts of
those adoring parents, falling deeper and deeper into a life of drugs and crime. The idolatrous
affection not only destroyed the relationship with God and other relationships, it participated
in the destruction of the very object of supreme devotion itself.
But love for God, when enthroned above all other loves, has the power to anchor the
other loves, to give them direction and power, to fill them with meaning, discipline them, and
lift them to their highest and best.
Above all other results, the person who lives in love actually lives in the realm or the
sphere God inhabits (1 Jn 4:16)—God who is the source and ultimate goal of all our
existence. This love we have for God, then, is not a vague sentimental abstraction. It means
intentional discipleship involving down-to-earth acts of reconciliation, forgiveness and
prayer for our enemies. It means attending to spiritual disciplines such as prayer, fasting,
meditation and celebration—the cultivation of character-shaping habits through daily
choices. It means obeying Christ’s commands: “If you love Me, you will keep My
commandments” (Jn 14:15). This is why love and obedience to Jesus’ commandments and to
“the law of Christ” cannot be separated—the theme we emphasize in this book and to which
we now specifically turn.
Further Reading
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
Morris, Leon. Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1981.
O’Donovan, Oliver. Common Objects of Love: Moral Reflections and the Shaping of
Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Smedes, Lewis B. Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve. New York:
HarperOne, 2007.
Smedes, Lewis B. Love Within Limits. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
PART IILaw
Why is law to some a hobgoblin of incarnate evil to be exorcised from life, while to
others it is the only hope of salvation? What is law’s purpose, and how can it be known?
A law is any rule or injunction that must be obeyed. In traditional religion, these rules
normally make requirements of a ceremonial or ritual kind and of an ethical or moral kind. In
fact, these laws are so prominent in most religions as to be considered the substance of those
religions. This was true of the Jewish religious leaders in Christ’s day, and it is true in much
of Christendom today. Is this the biblical point of view? Certainly there are many laws in the
Bible—613 Mosaic commandments and more than 600 direct commandments in the New
Testament. Are they rules that must be obeyed? Can they be obeyed? If not, for what purpose
were they given? Before these and other vital questions can be answered, it is important to
permit the Bible itself to define the term.
3The Law
Its Definition and Purpose Law
and the Character of God
God created humankind in his own image, and this includes the moral dimension. There
are other aspects of the divine image as well: rationality, relationality, creativity, spirituality,
volition. The moral dimension is, of course, profound and significant. It has to do not only
with our duties, but more fundamentally has to do with the formation of Christlike character.
Christ is the very image of God and the true archetypal human. He came to live the human
life as it should be lived and, through his redemptive work as the second Adam, helped
restore fallen humanity and created a new humanity.
The fact that we have been shaped to be imitators of God (Eph 5:1) is the basis of shared
love and fellowship with God; it is indispensable to demonstrating in human life the glorious
character of God and thus displaying his glory (2 Cor 3:18). Alas, from the beginning of
history, humans have been striving to become like God in knowledge and power: “you will
be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). At Babel, one line of self-sufficient humans
said, “Let us make for ourselves a name [šēm]” (Gen 11:4)—in contrast to what God
promised Abram: “I will make your name [šēm] great” (Gen 12:2NIV). This ancient
ambition to usurp the status of God is an attempt of the creature to displace the Creator. But
far different is the goal to mirror the moral character of God. As we are imaging beings, we
come to resemble what we worship. God commands us to “be holy, for I am holy” (Lev
19:2; 1 Pet 1:16 NIV). It is not optional. Since it is a divine imperative, we properly call this
will of God law.
To deviate from God’s character and commands is sin. The call to be holy will mean
separating ourselves from sin. As “saints” or “set apart ones,” we are to live up to our calling
as God’s holy people, pursuing a life that is in right alignment with the divine character.
Without it no one will see God (Heb 12:14).
As Calvin said, “The law not only teaches, but also imperiously demands.”[1] God’s
holiness demands conformity to his character and will, and the “law” of God expresses his
purposes not only for our behavior but for our character as well (Gal 5:22-23). God’s law is a
reflection of God’s character—although God’s law may sometimes permit the less-than-ideal
because of the hardness of human hearts (Mt 19:8). We can get an indication of who God is
by studying his revelation in his law. So let’s look at the biblical use of law more specifically.
Definitions of Law
How does the Bible use the term law? The dominant use of law in the Old and New
Testaments is that of the law of Moses given at Mt. Sinai, but we see secondary uses of the
term as well.
The Law as canonical Scripture. Moses, the great lawgiver, recorded the law in his
writings, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible); this was commonly called “the
Law.” The Hebrew Bible was divided into three sections, commonly called the Law, the
Prophets and the Writings (or the first of that section, the Psalms). Thus Christ said that
“everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be
fulfilled” (Lk 24:44 ESV). Here the “Law of Moses” clearly refers to the first division of the
Hebrew Old Testament—the Pentateuch. But sometimes the Old Testament was simply
referred to by two divisions, the Law and the Prophets (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16; Rom 3:21).
“The Law” could refer to the Old Testament as a whole, as when quotations made from “the
Prophets” or from “the Psalms” are attributed to “the Law” (see Rom 3:19; 1 Cor 14:21; see
also Mt 5:18; Lk 16:17; Jn 8:17; 10:34; 15:25). Thus “the Law” often refers to the Old
Testament as a whole or to some part of it.
The law of Moses.In the Old Testament, “law” or torah (“instruction”) typically harks
back to the Mosaic law given at Mt. Sinai. The book of Deuteronomy uses a cluster of terms
referring back to the Mosaic law—commandments, laws, testimonies, statutes, precepts,
charge (Deut 4:45; 6:17; 11:1; etc.). In Psalm 119, the psalmist uses these same terms to refer
to the law of Moses—and takes utter delight in them for their wisdom and guidance. The
prophets are continually reminding the people of Israel of the Mosaic law and their covenant
obligations to live under it as God’s people. For example, “I wrote for them the many things
of my law, but they regarded them as something foreign” (Hos 8:12 NIV); “they have
rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees” (Amos 2:4 NIV); and
“remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb [i.e.,
Sinai] for all Israel” (Mal 4:4 NIV). Israel was to respond to God’s grace by gratefully
obeying the Mosaic law: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt You
shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:1-3 NIV). If Israel did so, God promised
material/physical blessings of life, health, prosperity, abundance and safety (Lev 26:1-
13; Deut 4:32-40; 28:1-14; cf. Deut 28–32). For disobedience, God threatened curses, what
one scholar has called the ten “D’s”: death, disease, drought, dearth, danger, destruction,
defeat, deportation, destitution, disgrace.[2]
In the New Testament, Paul is the predominant writer on the “law” ( nomos). The general
consensus of New Testament scholars is that when Paul uses the term law, it virtually always
refers to the Mosaic law (Ex 20–Deut) given at Mt. Sinai, when God made a covenant with
Israel.[3] Those “under the law” are Jews: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.
To those under the law [the Jew] I became like one under the law (though I myself am not
under the law) To those not having the law [Gentiles] I became like one not having the
law” (1 Cor 9:20-21 NIV). And when Paul uses the phrase “works of the law,”
he always refers to “the Jewish Law, the Torah” given at Sinai.[4]
When Paul affirms that no one can be justified “by the works of the law” (Rom
3:20 NIV), he is saying the law of Moses with circumcision, food laws and special days is no
longer a mark of the people of God. What’s more, no one can gain right standing or be
declared righteous (“justified”) by keeping the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 2:6; see also Rom
4:14; 6:4, 15; Gal 3:2, 5, 10, 18; Phil 3:9). The implication is that if the Jews, having the best
law around, could not find salvation through it, then no works of any inferior Gentile legal
system can render us right or not guilty before God—or help us overcome sin’s power.[5]
Furthermore, Paul speaks of certain Gentiles, who, though not having the law, have the
law written on the heart (Rom 2:14-15). According to some scholars, Paul is speaking of
God’s moral law available to those without special revelation. Now, it is true that human
beings, made in God’s image, are capable of recognizing basic moral truths. Indeed, when
God judges—or threatens to judge—nations surrounding Old Testament Israel, the
presumption is that these nations should have known better than to carry out conscience-
stifling acts (e.g., Amos 1–2). Yet other interpreters look to Romans 2:28-29 as an
amplification of 2:14-15. They state that this passage refers to Gentile believers who, under
the new covenant in Christ, have the law of Moses placed within their hearts by the Spirit.
They are true Jews—true children of Abraham—whose hearts have been circumcised
(cf. Rom 4; Gal 4; Phil 3:3)—so that they keep the purport or the moral heart of the law of
Moses.
Other uses of “law.” The law as obedience. Sometimes the term law is used figuratively
to refer to a person’s obedient response to the law. When Paul says, “if justification were
through the law” (Gal 2:21 RSV), he obviously is not speaking of the commandments
themselves, but rather of the idea that a person can achieve acceptance as righteous through
obeying the law. The same thought is found in his reference to the “works of the law” (Rom
3:20) and the recurring teaching that “no one is justified by the Law before God” (Gal 3:11).
Paul meant no one is justified by obedience to the law. “By the works of the Law no flesh
shall be justified” (Gal 2:16; see also Rom 4:14; 6:4, 15; Gal 3:2, 5, 10, 18; Phil 3:9).
The law of God/Christ. Significantly, Paul distinguishes between the “law” of Moses and
the “law of God” (1 Cor 9:20-21; cf. Rom 7:25). The reason Paul does not see the Christian
under the Mosaic law—the old covenant—is that a new order has come in Christ. We are
bound by “the law of God” (1 Cor 9:20-21) and “the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19;
cf. 1 Jn 2:3-4)—not the Mosaic law given to national Israel.
What, then, is this “law of God” or “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2)? This “new law” under
which we live is the authoritative teaching of Christ and by implication the New Testament’s
apostolic witness. Like Moses ascending Mt. Sinai to bring the law to ancient Israel, Jesus as
the “new Moses” ascends a mountain and teaches the multitudes “as one having authority”
(Mt 5:1-2; 7:29). It is this teaching which fulfills, embodies and brings to completion the Old
Testament Scriptures for the new covenant community. For the New Testament writers,
Christ in his life, death, resurrection and ascension becomes the authoritative interpretive
filter—the hermeneutical key—through which we fully understand and apply the Old
Testament. Jesus is God’s agent to bring the much anticipated end-times kingdom (or reign)
of God into human history; the first coming of Jesus ushered in the “latter” or “last days”
(Acts 2:14-21; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 1:1-2; 2 Tim 3:1-7; 1 Jn 2:18), and Christ’s teaching and
mission clarify what God’s law for us is in these last days.[6]
This new covenant has implications that burst out of Israel’s nationalistic boundaries and
ethnocentrism that kept them from being a light to the nations. In light of the Christ event
and the gospel opening the door to the Gentiles, circumcision and uncircumcision do not
matter (7:19).[7]
The law of faith and the law of works. In Romans 3:27-28, Paul writes: “Where then is
boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we
maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Here “law” for Paul
seems to mean something like “operating principle.” In the context, Paul emphasizes that by
the “law of faith,” Jew and Gentile alike are “one” family and people in Christ (Rom 3:29-
30)—not two. Living by the “law of works,” which involves Torah-based dividing lines
between Jews and Gentiles (circumcision, kosher diet, special days), runs contrary to the
promise God made to Abraham to bless the nations (Rom 4; cf. Gen 12:1-3). Paul states that
those ethnic status symbols in Judaism actually hinder the fulfillment of the Abrahamic
promise of incorporating Gentiles into God’s family.
Paul then goes on to elaborate in Romans 4 that Abraham himself was justified by faith
(Gen 15:6) before he was circumcised (Gen 17)—and, perhaps more importantly, hundreds
of years before the law of Moses was given at Mt. Sinai (Rom 4:10-13). This “operating
principle” of “the law of faith” is the one by which God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5) and
by which Abraham was declared righteous. This principle of faith excludes boasting.
This use of law as “operating principle” applies to a “law of righteousness” (Rom 9:31),
which the Jews did not follow by faith (9:32). Unlike what many Jews thought, God’s law of
righteousness, which brings one into right standing before the covenant-making God (being
“justified”) is not identical to the law of Moses, which could not justify.
Keeping God’s Commandments
Contrary to the situation ethicist (see chapter ten), love for God and others is connected to
commands, laws and duties—and, of course, godly character. These are an expression of the
will of God for us. Some theologians have argued that living under grace rather than law
(Rom 6:14) means that grace is utterly disconnected from law. As we have seen, however,
there is a “law of God,” a “law of Christ” and a “law of righteousness” under which we live.
Indeed, in Romans 5–8, Paul uses the Old Testament’s exodus language—of deliverance
from slavery in Egypt—to remind us of the freedom and redemption we have in Christ. In
the “new exodus” through a new Moses figure, we have been set free from sin and death by
the “law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2).
To pit “law” against “grace” is unfortunate. John 1:17 says that even the law of Moses
was a gift of grace for national Israel—even though this covenant was temporary. With the
coming of the incarnate Word, we have received grace in addition to grace. Even in Eden,
God’s command not to eat of the tree presupposes a provision to keep God’s command. As
theologian Scott Hafemann observes, every command of God is a promise in disguise, and
every promise of God is a command in disguise.[8] For example, God’s command not to
murder implies that we should trust in God to deal justly with evildoers; God’s command not
to steal or covet implies that we should trust God to provide for our
needs. Disobedience reflects a lack of trust in God’s promises and provision. As 1
Corinthians 10:13 reminds us, God’s empowering presence is always available to enable us
to obey.
Likewise, we are not saved or rescued from sin by works (of the law); it is by gracious
gift through faith—that is, commitment to God and entrusting ourselves to God and his
redemptive work in Christ. Yet we are saved for good works that God has prepared
beforehand (Eph 2:8-10). This is what Paul refers to as the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5) or
the “work of faith” (1 Thess 1:3)—that is, work that is bound up with a life of faith. Paul said
he “labored more” than all the apostles, but this was according to God’s working within him
(1 Cor 15:10; Col 1:29).
Our works are the result of God’s gracious salvation, not the cause of it.
God’s grace instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldliness and to be zealous to do good
deeds (Tit 2:12-14). As someone has put it, the Christian faith is a religion of gratitude: our
good works flow from the salvation God has already wrought or worked within us (Phil
2:12). Thus we will be judged by our deeds precisely because these are an expression of trust
in God’s provision and promises (Rom 2:12; 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10). As we have begun the
Christian life by faith in Jesus Christ, so we continue by faith as well (Col 2:6-7). So living
the Christian life is not following a code of ethics. It is life oriented around Christ (“in
Christ”) and lived by the Spirit’s power; that is, the Christian life is living in relationship
with Christ, living in a new sphere or realm shaped by Christ, who gives to us a new identity
as part of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
We should add that since God himself is our standard, the standard is universal, applying
to persons across the ages. God’s moral standard, since it is anchored in the triune God and
to be lived out in dependence on him, is also personal— not some dead code.
In Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates raises the question about whether something is
holy because the gods arbitrarily approve it or whether the gods approve of some
independent moral standard outside themselves because it is holy. Goodness is not arbitrary,
nor is there some good standard independent of God—some free-floating platonic ideal or
“natural law,” for example. Rather, God’s good character is that standard, which serves as the
origin and the basis for the moral commands he issues. Because of God’s good character, he
does not have to jump through a set of cosmic moral hoops. Rather, God acts and by nature
does what is good. His commands (what we could call “the right”) flow from his intrinsic
worthiness and value (“the good”). God issues commands so that we who have been made in
his image might reflect his character. His purpose in redemption is to restore that marred
image.
And why should be become like him?
Purpose of the Law
The law as a guide. The law of God is often likened to light for guidance (e.g., Ps
119:105). And God’s law is directed at the disobedient to restrain evil (1 Tim 1:9-10). Where
virtue abounds, the law (Mosaic or otherwise) is not necessary (Gal 5:23). Law is given not
for the sake of upright people, but because of the rebellious and disobedient (1 Tim 1:9-10).
As Pliny the Younger wrote about the Roman Republic, “The more corrupt the Republic, the
more laws.” In other words, the multiplication of laws is a telltale sign of declining of moral
character. If the moral character of individuals and families in society is intact, then adding
more laws is not necessary. Law does not create moral people, but it frequently reminds us of
moral failure. Likewise, God’s law does not control evil people, but it is a retarding influence
on the forces of evil in the world. Some call this the political use of the law. By moral
standards a society is held together. When moral standards loosen, a community or nation
begins to come apart.
This serves as a reminder of the dangers of mere rule-keeping. Keeping rules is not
problematic in itself. The problem arises when rules are ends in themselves and are detached
from a broader framework of a developing (or developed) virtuous character as well as a
loving relationship with God and others.
The law as provoking sin. Like the light in the washroom, God’s law reveals humanity’s
moral defilement (Rom 3:20; 7:7). By the law comes the knowledge of sin. If I do not
believe I am dirty, I will not seek cleansing. If I do not think I am lost, I will not welcome a
rescuer. But if I know that I am polluted and incapable of doing that which I wish to do, I
will seek a savior and welcome him. This is the “custodian” work of the law that brings us
to Christ (Gal 3:24). The law in Paul’s sense here is like a teacher (“tutor” or “schoolmaster”)
—one who would attend to a child until he came of legal age.
For the sinner, the law makes sin very plain, “sinful beyond measure” (Rom 7:13 ESV).
Thus the terrifying law condemns us and is designed to make people seek a way of escape.
The law can often make us aware of our failure and prompt us to cast ourselves on God’s
mercy; we could call this the evangelistic use of the law. Of course, more often than not,
God’s kindness leads to repentance (Rom 2:4), and Jesus himself mentions the benefits of
salvation—finding rest (Mt 11:28-30) and abundant life (Jn 10:10), having thirst quenched
and hunger satisfied (Jn 4:14; 6:35)—without mentioning repentance. The assumption is that
people already recognize their deepest need. But if a person does not flee to the cross, the
law becomes the basis for her judgment in the last day rather than a means of grace (Rom
3:19).
For the Christian, the law has an entirely different function. Like a car’s headlights, the
law for the Christian shows the way he must go if he is to reach the destination of being like
Jesus. “God is light and in him is no darkness at all If we walk in the light, as he is in the
light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from
all sin” (1 Jn 1:5-7 ESV). For the believer, God’s law has a spiritual or
instructional (didactic) purpose: “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of
you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve
the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the
commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I command you this day for your good?”
(Deut 10:12-13 ESV).
And even for unbelievers, the more closely they follow God’s ways, the more their life
will align with the way they as human beings have been designed.
Conscience: An Inner “Law”
Although the Old Testament does not use the term conscience, the idea is there (1 Sam
24:5; 2 Sam 24:10; Jer 31:33; Amos 1–2), and it is explicitly taught in the New Testament
(Acts 24:16; Rom 2:14-15; 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 1:3; Heb 10:2, 22).
The conscience is the human capacity to make moral judgments (2 Cor 4:2; 1 Tim 4:2),
and it also serves as a witness to either affirm or condemn one’s moral behavior (Rom 2:14-
15; 2 Cor 1:12). Of course, our conscience is partly influenced by parents and society and
thus is not infallible. However, Scripture teaches that we have a deep or innate moral
awareness: everyone knows that there is right and wrong, and we have a general idea of how
we ought to be treated if our conscience is functioning reasonably and hasn’t been
suppressed and cauterized (Rom 1:18; 1 Tim 4:2).
Moreover, the conscience does not always have enough information to make the right
judgment, and one’s moral judgment becomes all the more obscured by separation from God,
the source of moral light. The fallen human mind is inclined to suppress the knowledge of
the right, to distort the moral light it does have. Consequently, “Let your conscience be your
guide” can be a dangerous maxim.
Though a person’s moral judgment is often untrustworthy, it can become more finely
tuned and increasingly reliable. This is all the more so for the believer, whose regenerated
mind has been renewed by the Spirit and molded by study of the Word of God and
submission to it. We are transformed by a renewed mind (Rom 12:2; cf. Mt 22:37) and made
more like Christ (2 Cor 3:18). As our minds are renewed, our conscience will become more
reliable. As we will note in part four (“Virtues and Vices”), although unbelievers can develop
morally, special revelation is still needed. For example, despite Aristotle’s remarkable moral
sensitivity in many ways, he still despised the idea of humility and the idea of being in
anyone’s debt. Of course, this is a huge problem for sinners in need of gracious outside
assistance from God. The Christ event is significant for informing and shaping the
conscience. And we turn to Christ and the law in the next chapter.
Excursus: Paul, James and Justification by Faith/Works
A common question on faith and works relates to Paul’s relationship to James. Paul
writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom
3:28). Yet James writes, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas
2:24). Who is correct? Both! In terms of audience and context, Paul and James have different
concerns in mind and thus use terms differently; this is particularly evident in the latter part
of James 2.[9] So let us briefly examine how they understand works, faith and justify.
How do Paul and James understand works? Paul speaks against works as a confidence in
Jewish status anchored in keeping Mosaic laws concerning circumcision, diet and special
days; without saving faith, such “boundary markers” are to no avail. Faith, love and new
birth count—not circumcision or uncircumcision (Gal 5:6; 6:15). By contrast, James
emphasizes good deeds that flow from grace and the development of Christlike character (as
Paul emphasizes in Eph 2:10): the audience to whom James is writing “knows nothing of the
tension with the Mosaic law that animated Paul.”[10] In some sense, though, James’s message
can be grasped once Paul’s message has been understood. Paul speaks about a faith that
works (Gal 5:6; Eph 2:10; Tit 2:11-12). The difference between Paul and James consists in
the sequence of works and conversion: Paul denies that works have any merit for acceptance
in God’s eyes before conversion; James is pleading for the absolute necessity of post-
conversion works.
How do Paul and James understand faith? Following Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount,
both Paul and James repudiate a “faith” that is mere verbal profession—like the faith of the
demons (Jas 2:19). Fallen angels “believe” there is one God; in contrast to James’s audience,
at least they tremble! In context, “faith” is mere intellectual doctrinal agreement. But Paul
would not call this saving faith any more than James does. Saying and hearing Christ’s
words but not doing them are condemned by both (2 Tim 3:5; Tit 1:16; Jas 1:22-27; cf. Mt
7:21-26).
How do Paul and James use the term justify? They specifically acknowledge that
Abraham was declared righteous when he trusted God’s promise, both citing Genesis
15:6 (Rom 4:2-3; Jas 2:21). For Paul, justify means “declared righteous/not guilty” by
God. James, on the other hand, uses it to mean “to confirm” the faith Abraham had when he
offered up Isaac. So if Abraham was already declared righteous in Genesis 15:6, he could not
be declared righteous by offering up Isaac (Gen 22)—only proved righteous.
So we see Paul and James are unified, not at odds, in their understanding of salvation and
the importance of good works as evidence of that faith.
The law of love. When James speaks of the royal law (Jas 2:8) or the “law of liberty” (Jas
2:12), the reference is to the specific law of love (“love your neighbor as yourself”)—a
summary of our obligation toward fellow humans. This recalls the new covenant promises
that God’s law would be placed in believers’ hearts (Jer 31:33). So not to love our neighbor
at one point, whether committing adultery or murdering or showing partiality (Jas 2:9-11),
amounts to failure to keep the whole law—in this case, commands related to neighbor-love.
In James 1:25, this “law of liberty” centers on love of our neighbors in our conversation and
in caring for those who are in need (Jas 1:19, 27).
Furthermore, God’s commands are not burdensome (1 Jn 5:3) because we live by a “law
of liberty”; that is, we are freed to serve and love others because we have been loved and
accepted by God in Christ. Under the new covenant, God by his Spirit gives
believers knowledge of his will, a desire to obey and empowerment to live as they should as
they continue to be shaped into Christ’s character.
Further Reading
Gundry, Stanley, ed. Five Views of Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Hafemann, Scott J. The God of Promise and the Life of Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.
Wright, N. T. Justification. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
4The Law, Christ, Salvation History and Obedience
Civil, Ceremonial and Moral?
At the very beginning of human existence, some of God’s will for humanity was
revealed: humans were to be fruitful, to participate with God in ruling creation, and to
commune with God in their earthly Edenic sanctuary (Gen 1:26-28; 3:8). But humans
received a moral prohibition as well—not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil (Gen 2:17). Some will raise the question, how could our first ancestors be held
accountable if they didn’t even know the difference between good and evil? True, they
did not know what evil was, but they did recognize their moral obligation to trust their
generous and good Creator; clearly, they had a duty to take God at his word rather than trust
the voice of a stranger in the Garden.
Even without Mosaic regulations about animal sacrifices in Genesis, humans were still
readily aware of sin, guilt, shame and the need for atonement or “covering” for that sin.
Humans knew about sin, to be sure. How else could it “crouch at the door” like some wild
animal ready to pounce (Gen 4:7)? God held humans morally responsible for their actions.
As God told Cain, “you must master it.”
Later in the law of Moses, God commanded circumcision, food laws (no pork or
shellfish), sacrifices, regulations for planting (no two crops in one field) and clothing (not
wearing clothing with two different fibers). Their laws regarding diet, clothing, farming, sex,
bodily discharges and worship served as constant practical reminders that they were to live as
God’s “set apart” people in every area of life. They were not to be “mixed in” with the
immoral practices and false worship of other nations.
Some scholars have attempted to offer guidance by “tidily” distinguishing
between moral, civil and ceremonial laws in Torah, but this will not do. All of these 613
Mosaic laws were moral laws for Israel. To violate them was to disobey God. Yet not all of
these commands were enduring universal laws for all people at all times. On top of this,
neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament made this threefold distinction. How then
do we sort out what is temporary and what is not?
Some say that only requirements that are rooted in the nature of God should be
considered binding. But who is to decide which teachings qualify? Does not that person
become the real authority rather than Scripture? And where in the Bible is such a principle
given? Others say that only what is repeated in the New Testament or only what is repeated
in the Epistles is binding for the Christian. But Jesus and the apostles seemed ignorant of
such a principle. They both consistently quoted the Hebrew Scriptures as the ultimate
authority—the only “Bible” they had. Furthermore, in the apostolic writings, the teachings of
Christ were considered ultimately authoritative. It would surely surprise them to have his
words set aside in favor of theirs.
Let’s dig a bit more deeply.
Jesus As Fulfiller of the Old Testament
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17 NIV).
In what way does Jesus fulfill the Law and Prophets? Consider the following ways.
First, Jesus brings to fruition the significance of the entire Old Testament.[1]“Fulfill”
translates a rich word (plēroō) that goes beyond merely fulfilling predictions. It includes
completing, embodying, bringing to maturity or perfection. Jesus is the true Son that national
Israel was not. He lives out Israel’s story, passing through the waters of baptism (a
reenactment of the Red Sea crossing; cf. 1 Cor 10:2), endures temptation forty days and
nights, calls twelve disciples, declares a new law from another mountain, and sets apart a
new kingdom community (Mt 21:43). So when Hosea 11:1 says, “Out of Egypt I called my
son” (NIV) it was originally referring to ethnic Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. When this
passage is cited as “fulfilled” in Matthew 2:15, it does not indicate that Hosea
had predicted Jesus’ coming out of Egypt. Rather, Jesus—God’s true, faithful Son—is the
climax of Israel’s story, bringing it to full significance. In this case, he is the faithful Israelite
who comes out of Egypt; he is the true Son, with whom God was well-pleased (Mt 3:17). He
is the new deliverer in the new exodus and establishes the new covenant community of God’s
people. He and those “in the Messiah” are the true Israel (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6; Phil 3:3). This
is not to deny that there are predictions of a coming Messiah and kingdom (e.g., Is 9:6; Mic
5:2; cf. Mt 2:5-6). But many more prophecies are much broader than this.[2]
Jesus is both the goal of the Mosaic law and the end or termination of it (Rom 10:4). He
would bring this to completion by becoming the sacrificial lamb to satisfy the demands of the
law—and the curse and exile for disobeying it—once for all. In doing so, he destroyed the
law’s power to condemn. By enacting the reality foreshadowed in the symbolism of the
ceremonial laws, he brought them to an end (Heb 7:26-28; 9:1, 9-10, 23-27). He “declared all
foods clean” (Mk 7:19) even before the cross; thus he set aside all the dietary regulations,
which were a boundary marker to set the Israelites apart from the nations.
Second, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament as the one who inaugurates God’s in-breaking
kingdom in human history: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17). As the “new
Moses,” Jesus delivered his upside-down kingdom demands to his disciples. In the Sermon
on the Mount, he emphasized how disciples are different (Mt 5:14-16; 6:1-2, 5, 8, 16, 32-
33; 7:13-14). Jesus taught how countercultural the disciple is to be in
his character and behavior. And he spoke all of this with noticeable authority (Mt 7:29),
emphasizing repeatedly in Matthew 5, “But I say to you”—in addition to being the ultimate
judge of human beings (Mt 7:21-23). Contrary to what liberal theology has stressed, Jesus’
authority is not found in his reaffirming universally agreed-on moral truths. Rather, his
authority is anchored in his unique status as God’s incarnate Son and as the Messiah who
brings God’s rule or reign onto the human scene.
Third, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament in that virtues and moral behavior found therein
are to characterize the new covenant community. Jesus is the head of a renewed community
who participate in a new exodus and a renewed creation. Jesus is not so much teaching some
new ethic in Matthew 5-7 and elsewhere, but he anchors his teaching in the moral heart of
the Old Testament in anticipation of new covenant blessings. Consider, for example, how
Jesus utilizes Isaiah 61 in the Beatitudes (see table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Use of Isaiah 61 in the Beatitudes
Isaiah 61
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5)
vv. 1-2: good news to the oppressed . . . the
year of the LORD’s favor.
v. 3: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
vv. 1-3: to bind up the brokenhearted . . . to
comfort all who mourn.
v. 4: Blessed are those who mourn, for they
shall be comforted.
v. 7: They will inherit a double portion in
their land.
v. 5: Blessed are the humble, for they shall
inherit the earth.
v. 3: They will be called oaks of
righteousness.
v. 6: Blessed are those who hunger and
thirst for righteousness.
vv. 10-11: I will rejoice greatly in the
Lord ....... So the Lord God will cause
righteousness and praise to spring up before
all the nations.
v. 10: Blessed are those who have been
persecuted for . . . righteousness, for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven ....... Rejoice and
be glad.
In his resurrection, Jesus ushered in a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), and the community of
believers are part of this fertile new creation as they exhibit the Spirit’s fruit (Gal 5:22-23),
anticipated in Isaiah 32and Isaiah 57:15-19, which mention “fruit of the Spirit” and “joy,”
“peace,” “patience”—along with righteousness, justice and confidence.[3]
Further, Jesus brings out the perfect, ultimate moral significance of the Old Testament:
murder is wrong, to be sure, but so is hatred (Mt 5:21-22); adultery is sinful, but so is lust
(Mt 5:27). We see Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament in explaining its moral significance for
the new covenant community.
Fourth, Jesus fulfilled the law by obeying it. Though he considered all foods clean and
raised challenges about the sabbath, Jesus did not attempt to subvert the law but typically
kept its requirements (Lk 23:41; 2 Cor 5:21). Thus he became the model and exemplar of
what it means to live under the law as a faithful Israelite (Gal 4:4-5).
In a remarkable statement affirming Jesus’ deity and supreme moral character, he said,
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). How blessed we are in the age of grace
—we can see God in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that we can be right with God by
imitating his Son. No, salvation is the free gift of redemption from slavery, of being adopted
into God’s family, of being declared not guilty (“justified”) by virtue of Christ’s death on our
behalf. This status we receive by faith in Christ. But we were “created in Christ Jesus for
good works” (Eph 2:10), and he has clearly demonstrated that life since he came to do the
will of the Father (Jn 4:34; 14:31; 15:10). True, we do not follow him in his living “under the
Law” (Gal 4:4-5), whose demands he himself would fulfill on our behalf (Rom 8:3), nor do
we imitate him in his unique ministry as the Son of God and Savior. But in his faithful
reproduction of the character of the Father, he is our sure and certain example.
Furthermore, Jesus’ death was more than the fulfillment of the law in the sense of paying
the penalty demanded by the law. It is also our example of supreme godlikeness. In fact, he
put on display the highest form of love—complete sacrifice of self, even for one’s enemy
(Rom 5:8). Never had the world even imagined such love. And it became the foundation for
Christian behavior as well as the source of Christian life. The preaching of Christ and him
crucified gives new shape and content to biblical ethics. “For God,” Paul insists, “did not call
us for uncleanness, but in holiness” (1 Thess 4:7 RSV). “And he died for all,” he repeats,
“that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died
and was raised” (2 Cor 5:15 ESV).
In this fact Paul finds the motive for holy living. That is why Paul never tires of relating
the obligations of morality to the fact that Christ died for us. Is it a matter
concerning domestic relationship? “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church
and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25ESV). Is it a matter concerning the weaker brother?
“Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15 RSV). Is it
a matter of ambitious rivalry? Have the mind of Christ, who emptied himself, took the form
of a slave and became obedient to death on a cross (Phil 2:5-8). Is it a matter of daily living?
“Walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice
to God” (Eph 5:2 RSV). Is it a matter of sexual morality? “Do you not know that your body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit? . . . You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your
body” (1 Cor 6:19-20 RSV). The writers of the New Testament consistently appeal to
Christ’s work on Calvary—to an accomplished redemption through loving sacrifice—as a
ground and a motive of holy living.[4]
Christ fulfilled the law by fulfilling another prophecy: He sent the Holy Spirit as foretold
by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:17-21). The day of Pentecost marked the birth of a new people of
God, the church—the bringing together of believing Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9–11; Eph 3) in
fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (Gen 12:1-3). In establishing the church (Mt 16:18),
Jesus established a new way of administering God’s people here on earth—no longer a
theocratic entity with political and military power. Christ spoke of a kingdom not “of this
world” (Jn 18:36). In establishing the church, the workings of God’s kingdom purposes
through national Israel were no longer operative.
Jesus brought substance to what was previously shadow, as Hebrews highlights. He drew
out the law’s inner meaning and radicalized it. Throughout his ministry, he consistently
affirmed the Old Testament as the authoritative Word of God (e.g., Mt 5:17-19; 23:23).
Furthermore, Jesus clearly identified with the Law and the Prophets to reinforce his own
teaching. His criticism of the law was primarily of the Pharisaic interpretations of the law
(e.g., Mt 5:20, 38) and the human-made traditions added to the law (Mt 15:1-9; 23). And
Paul would add that authoritative significance of the law for the people of God was no longer
binding with the new covenant community created by the Messiah and directed by the
indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18).
And Jesus, as the full revelation of God and his character (Jn 1:18; 14:9), appropriated
the Old Testament’s enduring truths about God’s nature and his will for humankind, giving it
clarity, definition and depth in light of his mission. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) is the
most concentrated example of clarifying the law, but this approach permeated all his
teaching. He gives a “new law” for his new community, which bears his distinctive authority
(“I say unto you”).
Furthermore, it is this whole body of teaching—all that he commanded—with which we
are to disciple the nations (Mt 28:18-20). Only those specific laws of the Old Testament or
those categories of law (dietary, ceremonial, civil) that he set aside may we set aside
on his authority.
The Law and Salvation History: a Brief Look at Romans 7
Romans 7:7-25 has long puzzled believers. Paul is saying, “I have the desire to do what is
good, but I cannot carry it out.” “Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.” “[I
am] a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me” (Rom 7:18, 21-23 NIV). Is Paul speaking
as a defeated believer? An unbeliever? The answer is certainly debated, but some important
themes emerge as we seek to understand the believer’s relation to the law.
Theologians have used the term salvation history to speak of God’s saving activity in
human history. This is important for our understanding of Romans 7: the old era with its
“power structures” dominated by Adam, the law, the flesh and death has been abolished and
displaced through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus is the “new man” or “second Adam”
(Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) and as the obedient Son the true Israel that national Israel failed to be (Is
1:2-3; Hos 11:1; cf. Mt 2:15; 3:17). Jesus is the founder of a new humanity and a new
covenant people, and the failure of the old humanity and old covenant people is highlighted
in Romans 7.
Romans 7:7-25 can be divided into two sections that reflect national Israel’s salvation
history. In the first section, Paul is speaking representatively as a Jew experiencing the
tyranny of the law when it was given at Mt. Sinai (note the past tense verbs in Rom 7:7-12).
[5] In the second section, it refers to Jews continuing to live under the law (note
the present tense verbs in Rom 7:13-25). Because Spirit-inspired faith did not ground
obedience to the Mosaic law for most Israelites (e.g., Heb 3:17), the law merely helped
expose human powerlessness over sin, led to frustration, and even provoked sin, resulting in
condemnation.
In Romans 7, Paul seems to be describing life under the law from three angles:
•
Paul’s past experience as an unbelieving Jew under the Mosaic law
•
The experience of all Jews under the Mosaic law
•
The experience of living “in Adam” (see Paul’s references to Genesis 3 inRom
7:9, 11)
When the law was given at Sinai (Rom 7:7-12), it provoked sin. Paul identifies with
national Israel as though he was at Sinai at the giving of the law. Then, while living under
the law, Israelites could not overcome the power of sin, which was aggravated by the law
(Rom 7:13-25). What about Paul’s use of the pronoun “I”? This reflects the story of the
people of Israel under the law—and thus his own story; this story did not include living by
faith as Abraham did (Rom 4; cf. Gen 15:6). While the Jew took delight in the law of Moses
and knew the will of God very specifically, the Jew still failed to keep the law in which he
gloried! So before Sinai, sin was not as active and powerful; sin was “dead” to Israel in this
sense (Rom 5:13; 7:8). But when the law was given at Sinai, it produced all kinds of evil
desires (Rom 7:7-12). After Sinai, the Jew felt strongly how the law was unable to free him
from sin’s power (Rom 7:13-25).
Elsewhere in Romans, Paul refers to Jews who have failed to live by faith while
following the Mosaic law; they are “in the flesh” and “under the law” and “in Adam.” This is
a different category or realm from the new creation inaugurated by Christ’s death and
resurrection; this includes freedom Christ brings from sin, death, the law, and the flesh. By
comparing texts in Romans 5–8, we see that Paul is not speaking as a Christian in Romans
7:7-25. Rather he speaks as a Jew—and for all Jews—living without faith under the Mosaic
law. Paul is not speaking so much individually of his own private experience—though that is
included—but corporately in identification with Jews under the law.
There may be overlap experientially between the Christian, on the one hand, and the Jew
living under the law without faith, on the other—for example, feeling thwarted and frustrated
at giving in to sin, being profoundly aware of one’s own sin, struggling with selfish desires.
However, Paul’s specific terminology in Romans 5–8 reflects that a new era in salvation
history has dawned: God in Christ has defeated the power of the law to enslave and
condemn. We are no longer “in Adam” or “under the law” or “in the flesh”: “you are not in
the flesh but in the Spirit” (Rom 8:9). We are “in Christ,” “in the Spirit,” and no longer
“under the law.” The old has passed away and the new has come (2 Cor 5:17).
Table 4.2. Romans 7:7-25 Compared with Surrounding Sections
Romans 7:7-25
Surrounding Sections: Romans 5–8
7:8: “But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded
by the commandment [‘You shall not covet’],
produced in me every kind of covetous
desire ....... When the commandment came, sin
sprang to life and I died.”
7:5: “For when we [in the past] were
controlled by [the flesh], the sinful
passions aroused by the law were at
work, so that we bore fruit for death.
7:14: “but I am . . . sold as a slave to sin.”
6:20: “When you were slaves to sin.”
6:7: “that we should no longer be
slaves to sin—because anyone who has
died has been freed from sin.”
7:14: “The Law is spiritual; but I am of
flesh.”
8:9: “But you are not in the flesh but in
the Spirit [i.e., spiritual].”
7:25: “in the [flesh I am] a slave to the law of
sin.”
8:2: “through Christ Jesus the law of the
Spirit of life set me free from the law of
sin and death.”
7:17, 20: “sin living in me.”
8:9: “the Spirit of God lives in you.”
7:24: “Who will set me free from the body of
this death?”
6:6: “that the body of sin might be done
away with that we should no longer be
slaves to sin.”
7:25: “I . . . in my mind am a slave to God’s
law.”
7:4: “you also died to the law.”
Compare the language of being in Romans 7:7-25 and surrounding sections of Romans
5–8. As shown in table 4.2, the language of Romans 7:7-25 compared with the rest
of Romans 5–8 tilts the scales away from thinking that Paul is writing as a Christian. The
Christian is not “in the flesh [sarx]” (Rom 8:9; cf. Rom 7:5), unlike the Jews under the law:
“I am of flesh (sarkanos), sold into bondage to sin” (7:14). Being “in the flesh” in Romans
8:1-11 refers to the unsaved person, one without the Spirit, like the “natural” person in 1
Corinthians 2:14-15. Like the law, all believers are “spiritual” because they have the Spirit;
however, believers not walking by the Spirit can live as mere unredeemed “fleshly” humans
(1 Cor 3:1-3).
Some might reply, Didn’t Jesus come in the “flesh” (Jn 1:14), and doesn’t Paul live his
life “in the flesh” (Gal 2:20)? Yes, this use of “flesh” simply refers to life in the body, and
Scripture sometimes uses “flesh” in this neutral way. However, Paul’s use of flesh is often
connected to salvation history (life before Christ) and the significance of the Christ event.
Paul is saying that we believers no longer live “according to the flesh”—that is, according to
earth- or human-centered priorities and efforts that were typical of our life “in Adam” or “the
old humanity.” Rather, we live life “according to Spirit,” who empowers us to live as we
ought: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the
weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of
fortresses” (2 Cor 10:3-4).
The Christian is no longer under “the law of sin” (Rom 8:2)—unlike the Jew under the
law, who is a “prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom 7:23). The
difference between the person in Romans 7 and the Christian is between willingness to obey
God’s will and doing God’s will and pleasing God (cf. Rom 7:25 with Rom 8:5-7). The
Christian recognizes the profound, daily struggle with sin, idolatry and self-centeredness. But
—like a newly adopted child—those in Christ take on a new family identity and status; in the
Messiah we have become children of our heavenly Father who, by his Spirit, will continually
shape us into the character of Christ (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 4:19). As we engage in daily
habits of obedience, service, trust and love, the character of Christian individuals and
communities will become increasingly like that of Christ—a topic we address in part four.
The Indicative and the Imperative: Obedience in Light of Our Status
C. S. Lewis said that God “works from the centre outwards, gradually bringing more and
more of [the believer’s] conduct under the new standard.”[6] Changing external behavior is
not God’s ultimate goal for us; God is interested in internal transformation, of working out
our salvation (Phil 2:12-13). Thus, for the Christian, being precedes doing; because many
Christians do not know who they are in Christ, they can fall prey to extremes
of legalism or lethargy. As Paul writes in Ephesians 4:1, “I . . . implore you to walk in a
manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called”—that is, our practice must
reflect or flow from our position in Christ. This is what some scholars describe as
the indicative—the established or accomplished fact—and the imperative (or command); that
is, position and practice, being and doing. In light of our salvation (position), we are to work
out (practice) that salvation with fear and trembling.
It is always easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical
tension. And this is particularly evident here. Earlier, we mentioned that we live in two
“eras”—the already and the not yet. We experience the already of forgiveness, redemption,
justification and adoption (Eph 1:3-12; Rom 5:1; 8:15). However, we recognize the reality of
the not yet—that we still live in a world of sin and death, that we do yet not have immortal
resurrection bodies in a new creation, that our justification and adoption are not fully
finalized (Phil 3:21; Gal 5:5; Rom 8:23). Unless we daily recognize this tension between the
already and not yet, between the indicative and imperative, we will slip into the extremes of
frustration or complacency.
Consider these Pauline pairings:
“For sin shall not be master over you” (Rom 6:14, indicative).
“Do not let sin reign in your mortal body” (Rom 6:12, imperative).
“You became slaves to righteousness” (Rom 6:18, indicative).
“Present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification” (Rom 6:19,
imperative).
“You have been raised with Christ . . . you died” (Col 3:1-3 NIV, indicative).
“Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead” (Col 3:5, imperative).
Here we see both the accomplished facts(indicative) and the commands (imperative) that
correspond to them. God has already given us all we need in Christ (“for in Him you have
been made complete,” Col 2:10). We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in
Christ (Eph 1:4). Christ has defeated the old “power structures” and positioned us for
freedom over the tyranny and fear of death (Rom 5), the tyranny of sin’s mastery (Rom 6),
the sin-provoking effect and defeat brought by adherence to the Mosaic law (Rom 7), and
death produced by the flesh or our this-worldly orientation “in Adam” (Rom 8). The new era
“in Christ” is characterized by life (Rom 5), by righteousness (Rom 6), by
Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic law, and by the Spirit who brings life (Rom 8).[7]
But we have not yet completed the race, and Christ’s image continues to be formed in us
as we daily love and trust in Christ and obey his commands. So, in light of this position or
status God has granted us, we are commanded to live up to what we are: “Don’t go back to
what you were. You don’t have to live like a slave to sin anymore.”
Overemphasizing the “already” side, the Corinthians so focused on their position in
Christ, living in the “already,” that they ignored the “not yet.” Some even denied there was a
future resurrection (1 Cor 15:12). They took pride in their “power,” “wisdom,” “knowledge,”
and “spirituality” (1:18–2:16; 3:18-20; 2:10–3:4). Since they had God’s Spirit and an
amazing array of spiritual gifts, “their physical conduct [seemed] to them a matter of
indifference.”[8] They assumed immoral living—and tolerated it; they believed this didn’t
affect God’s assessment of them (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-8). They had arrived! So Paul sarcastically
wrote to them: “You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become
kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign
with you” (1 Cor 4:8). For such, Paul gives warnings against spiritual pride, mentions divine
judgment (1 Cor 3:13-15; 4:5; 11:30) and exhorts them regarding ongoing obedience and
humility (1 Cor 1:18-31; 5:6; 15:31). Overemphasizing the indicative needs to be corrected
by attending to the imperative.
By contrast, the Galatians were stuck in the mentality of the not yet—living by the
imperative of doing, performing and “adding” to Christ’s sufficiency. Such a lifestyle
inevitably leads to frustration and defeat. The Galatians began well—in the Spirit—but they
had succumbed to living by the elemental principles of this world (Gal 4:3, 9; cf. Col
2:8, 20). This bondage was similar to the “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch”
regulations of the Colossians (Col 2:21). They had slipped into performance mode, living
according to the “elementary things” devised by humans, and had forgotten the great things
of the gospel. This congregation needed to be reminded of their position and completeness
“in Christ.”
Obedience Versus Legalism
Paul affirmed that the Mosaic law is good (Rom 7:12), the law is spiritual (Rom 7:14),
and there are “greater” and “lesser” commandments (Mt 5:17-19). The law is only good if it
is used lawfully, as it was intended (1 Tim 1:8). How is it possible to misuse the law? How
can the law be used illegally or unlawfully? Of course, the antinomian who opposes all laws
and standards obviously misuses the law. But the legalist misuses the law in a different way.
And there is the middle ground of character formation or the cultivation of virtue, by which
doing God’s will becomes more automatic.
The first problem with various forms of legalism is the false assumption that obedience
to the law is a means of salvation or status before God. Paul’s letter to the “bewitched”
Galatians opposes “another gospel”—the message the Judaizers proclaimed—that right
standing before God can somehow be achieved by (presumptuously) “adding” to Jesus’
sufficiency by adopting Jewish “boundary markers” such as circumcision and kosher laws in
order to be properly identified as God’s people. Elsewhere, Paul refers to the teachings of
false prophets prohibiting certain foods and sex in marriage as “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim
4:1-5). Ironically, what these teachers banned were actually good gifts from God to enjoy and
receive with thanks. The point seems to be that the further one moves away from grace and
into legalism, the more demonic this way of life becomes.
Even if a person claims to be saved by grace, she can display these easily-exhibited
marks of piety for show (e.g., fasting, giving and praying in Mt 6:1-18). Jesus condemns
such displays of glory-seeking, advocating instead doing such acts secretly and anonymously
so that God alone can see and reward. Such spiritual exhibitionism is the opposite of the way
of faith: “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the
glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44 RSV). On the other hand, we may at other
times be tempted to shrink from doing what is good or being slipshod in our devotion. In this
case, Jesus admonishes us, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see
your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). As one theologian
summarizes things: Show when tempted to hide(e.g., Mt 5:13-16), and hide when tempted to
show (Mt 6:1).[9]
Another legalistic danger is obedience through self-effort rather than relying on the Spirit
and the grace of God. Here, the Western church is in constant danger of operating by
technique, method and programming rather than in reliance on the Spirit to produce lasting,
spiritual fruit. As we saw above, Paul worked harder than all the apostles, but he did so
relying on God’s strength (1 Cor 15:10; Col 1:29). As the singer Keith Green urged, “Keep
doing your best, and pray that it’s blessed . . . and He’ll take care of the rest.”
A fourth problem with legalism is that it denies Christ’s sufficiency in that we must
somehow bear the burden of guilt that the Savior has already borne. God “is faithful and
just,” not just merciful and kind (1 Jn 1:9). If the Father did not forgive our sins, he would be
unfaithful and unjust, for he would be demanding of us a second payment for what has
already been paid. “Oh, what needless pain we bear,” said the hymn writer.
A fifth problem with legalism is its emphasis on rule following rather than the formation
of Christlike character. The philosopher Immanuel Kant stressed doing one’s moral duty and
following rules or maxims that can be universalized by all people—“don’t lie, steal or cheat.”
However, he bypassed the importance of virtuous character from which these acts should
flow. That is, we increasingly do what is right, kind and loving because it flows from daily
habits of love, service and self-discipline cultivated over time. Merely following rules is not
enough. Although rules are not unimportant, our good deeds and edifying words should
spring from more fully developed Christlike character (Mt 7:16-20; Jas 3:13).
Finally, another type of legalism is obedience out of fear of negative consequences rather
than out of love (1 Jn 4:18). Though obedience for lesser motives is not necessarily sinful
and, therefore, not legalism in the same way, it nevertheless reflects an immaturity in
relationships. Obeying the law out of fear of the consequences is pragmatic
and extrinsic; obeying from love for our Savior and master is the higher, intrinsic obedience.
It is like getting a college education because your parents required you to (or maybe so that
you can find a job) as opposed to going to school because you love to learn and use your
mind. To be sure, it is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than not to do the
right thing at all. It is better to be legalistic in one’s obedience than to disobey God. And
while God appeals to his people to obey both from a hope of reward and a fear of loss as a
last resort (Ezek 3:17-21; 33:7-9; Dan 12:3; 1 Cor 3:10-15), the highest motive is love and
devotion. Obedience out of gratitude for all the gifts of grace is the best antidote to the virus
of legalism.
Misunderstandings Concerning Legalism and Obedience
Samuel told King Saul, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22). Jesus
affirmed this very point: “I desire compassion, and not sacrifice” (Mt 9:13; 12:7; cf. Hos
6:6). Like Jesus, we must oppose the legalism that strains out a gnat and swallows a camel
(Mt 23:4). Yet so many misunderstand what kind of legalism needs to be opposed!
First, opposing legalism does not mean opposing all laws. A simple perusal of Psalm
119 makes this abundantly clear: “O how I love Your law!” (Ps 119:97). And, John reminds
us, God’s “commands” are not burdensome (1 Jn 5:3).
Second, we must avoid a faulty understanding of “the spirit of the law.” Two passages in
the New Testament contrast the letter and spirit—Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6. “The
letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6 NIV). In both cases Paul uses “letter” as a
synonym for law—the law that shuts us up to condemnation—and “Spirit,” the Holy Spirit
who gives life. Now, following the “spirit of the law” may, for some, be a cover for a
relativistic or situational ethic—that being well-meaning or nice or having decent intentions
is all that matters. No, Christ’s desire for mercy or compassion instead of religious externals
doesn’t diminish the duties of discipleship: to deny self and take up our cross, to love Christ
more than family, to surrender to the ultimate demands of Christ’s kingdom, even if it means
persecution and martyrdom.
Third, opposing legalism is not to advocate unbridled freedom.In the Bible freedom is not
license to do what we please, but power to do what we ought (Gal 5:1, 13). And as we are
transformed into Christ’s character through daily habits and disciplines cultivated over time,
loving and obeying God’s will increasingly become second nature. We become more
authentically human and freer in our love for God and others. Absolute freedom, however, is
an illusion. All we are really offered in human existence is the choice of masters: sin or
righteousness, Satan or God. We will inescapably worship and serve either God or some
cheap God-substitute. As C. S. Lewis said, in the end there are two kinds of people: those
who say to God “Thy will be done” and those to whom God says, “Thy will be done.”[10]
Fourth, legalism cannot be reduced to following human-made rules. There are human-
made rules that have been devised for our protection: we should drive on correct side of the
road, obey traffic signals, vacate a building when a fire alarm sounds. Paul admonishes
citizens to submit to their rulers who have a responsibility to protect citizens, preserve peace
and execute justice (cf. Rom 13; 1 Pet 2:18), but they are themselves subject to a higher
Authority. This is why “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That said, even
inadequate human government is better than no government at all; order is better than chaos.
Fifth, legalism should not be equated with adhering to negative or “nit-picky”
rules. True, the Christian faith is not simply a list of dos and don’ts, and God is more
concerned about our becoming Christlike and living wisely than being rule-oriented.
However, dos and don’ts are found throughout Genesis to Revelation—including Paul’s
cautions about hairstyles and dress that show off one’s social status. As we’ve seen, God’s
rules or commands are not to be confused with legalism (Rom 8:2; Gal 6:2, 16; 1 Tim
3:2; Rom 8:2). Even when Jesus rebukes religious leaders in Matthew 23, he is not opposed
to their meticulousness in tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but their hypocrisy. They neglected
the “weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (Mt 23:23-24 RSV). They
didn’t practice what they preached (Mt 23:3).
Unfortunately, this problem of hypocrisy is one of the top reasons the unchurched are
turned off to the Christian faith.[11] In the West, there are many negative associations with the
term Christian. In fact, it may be wise to first discern what people understand by the
word Christian before we use it. The popular writer Donald Miller, though we would
disagree with him at points, is spot on in this illustration:
In a recent radio interview I was sternly asked by the host, who did not consider himself a
Christian, to defend Christianity. I told him that I couldn’t do it, and moreover, that I didn’t
want to defend the term. He asked me if I was a Christian and I told him yes. “Then why
don’t you want to defend Christianity?” he asked, confused. I told him I no longer knew what
the term meant. Of the hundreds of thousands of people listening to his show that day, some
of them had terrible experiences with Christianity, they may have been yelled at by a teacher
in a Christian school, abused by a minister, or browbeaten by a Christian parent. To them, the
term Christianity meant something that no Christian I know would defend. By fortifying the
term, I am only making them more and more angry. I won’t do it I told the radio show
host that I would rather talk about Jesus and how I came to believe that Jesus exists and that
he likes me. The host looked back at me with tears in his eyes. When we were done, he asked
me if we could go get lunch together. He told me how much he didn’t like Christianity but
how he had always wanted to believe Jesus was the Son of God.[12]
Summary
We have already seen that obedience to God’s/Christ’s commands and standards is not
opposed to love; rather, obedience is a reflection of our love for God/Christ (Jn
14:15; 15:10; 1 Jn 2:3). Nor is obedience to God’s laws opposed to faith but rather an
expression or outworking of our trust in God (Eph 2:8-10); indeed, faith is the only way to
respond to grace—not doing to earn God’s acceptance but accepting what God has done for
us in Christ. Nor is law opposed to grace, but rather God’s commands are for our well-being:
“for our good always and for our survival” (Deut 6:24; cf. 10:13). God’s laws are
a gracious gift to us to guide us as the people of God (Ex 20:1-2; Jn 1:17). Yet Christ’s
disciples must go beyond rule following to the transformation of our character so that
obedience becomes increasingly second nature (see part four).
Contrary to the Judaizers, the Mosaic law could not save or bring reconciliation with
God; rather it was faith in the God who promises (Gen 15:6)—a theme Paul hammers home
in Romans and Galatians. And contrary to the antinomians, divine laws and commands are
expressions of God’s love and grace, and they are bound up with a life of faith and
discipleship.
Professing Christians who are opposed to any laws at all are misguided and are
misreading the Scriptures. Indeed, we would expect Christ and the apostles refer
to some Mosaic laws as binding for Christians—indeed, for all human beings. Of course,
Jesus and the apostles do not endorse all of these laws for the new covenant community to
follow. For example, Jesus himself declared all foods to be clean (Mk 7:19), and the book of
Hebrews makes clear that animal sacrifices, the priesthood, the tabernacle (and temple, by
implication) are a shadow of what is to be found in Christ. Beyond this, we would expect that
the “weightier matters of the law” (Mt 23:23) would be taken up and applied for the new
covenant community by Christ and the apostles. The Old Testament, with its laws and
instructions, has been filtered through the sieve of later revelation—namely, the teaching of
Christ and the apostles, and this “law of Christ” is our authoritative guide for faith and life.
The law of Moses is no longer the new covenant believer’s direct and immediate source
of guidance.[13] Jesus affirmed the authority of the divinely revealed Mosaic law, but he
declared that it was fulfilled and embodied in him; thus its function for the Christian is not
what it was for ancient Israel. In the words of N. T. Wright, “the Torah is given for a specific
period of time, and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished,
but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished.”[14]
While Christ embodies and makes clear the full significance of “the Law and the
Prophets,” he and the New Testament writers express an important moral continuity with the
Hebrew Scriptures. The Ten Commandments serve as a moral core—a summary—of the
Mosaic law set forth in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 6. As we shall see, nine of these
ten commandments are repeated in various ways in the New Testament, though there is
admittedly dispute regarding the enduring relevance of the Sabbath command for believers
today (see chapter thirteen).
Most of this book will involve unpacking the enduring beauty, value and implications of
these commands. God, we’ve seen, is more concerned with character than commands, more
concerned with love than law. But, in actuality, God’s law is a spelling out of how love will
behave. That’s why we have begun our study with “love” and “law.” And as we examine the
Ten Commandments, we will understand more clearly what God is like and how he has
designed us as to live—as his “chosen race,” “royal priesthood” and “holy nation” so that we
may proclaim by our lips and our lives “the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of
darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9).
Further Reading
Bird, Michael, ed. Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Gundry, Stanley, ed. Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Wright, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2009. 5Sin
Its Definition and Its Origin
Sin is an unpopular word, but a very popular activity. Thought lightly of on earth by those
who practice it, sin is considered the heaviest of all weights in heaven—whose penalty was
borne by the Son of God, who came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15; cf. Mt 1:21).
In nineteenth-century America, ideas of human nature and solutions to human problems
were generally informed by the Bible and defined as sin. But under the tutelage of the social
sciences, especially psychology, the concept of what is wrong with humans has evolved
from sin to error to illness to hurt so that far from feeling guilty, the predominant notion is
that anyone with problems is a victim of someone else’s malice, avarice or stupidity. In our
therapeutic age, we have diagnoses or labels for what Scripture bluntly calls “sin.” “Road
rage” requires relaxation techniques or “anger management” classes—not repentance, prayer
and other spiritual disciplines. Alcoholism is called a disease or sickness. All of our human
problems are defined in nonmoral and non-theological terms. Any pathology is reduced to
psychological disorders that must be resolved by therapeutic methods.[1] In Wayne Oates’s
words, “Rage, fear, bondage, shame, guilt, worthlessness, and many others—which are
abundant in the psalms and the letters of Paul especially—are labeled with psychological
terms.”[2]
So the nature of sin is little understood, the origin of it little known, and the results of it
considered only too late. Yet sin is a major theme of Scripture, and without understanding it,
the greater themes of righteousness, repentance and salvation can never be rightly known.
Let us consider what the Word of God teaches concerning the nature of sin, its roots and
fruits.
Definition of Sin
As the story goes, The Times of London posed a question for its readers: “What’s wrong
with the world?” And the Christian writer G. K. Chesterton offered a simple and profound
answer: “I am.” At very minimum, the concept of sin expresses that something is wrong with
the world. Of course, there is much wrong in the world that is not moral. There is something
wrong with rust on our car fenders—as with bank failure, the weakness of old age or a
flooded basement. Nor do we hold anyone guilty for innocent mistakes. After all, such are
the troubles and grief that come with our earthly condition. By contrast, sin has
a moral component—the territory of right and wrong, duty and prohibition, good and evil.
While the concept of sin has a moral dimension to it, it is also religious or theological. It
is not merely breaking a law or not doing our duty. Unlike “wrong,” “evil,” “badness” or
even “crime,” sin introduces the idea of God. Sin is a departure from the character and will
of God—a deviation from the way things ought to be. Shalom (“peace”) in the Old Testament
represents life that is well-ordered, whole, flourishing, right with God and others. By
contrast, sin is anti-shalom. It is “culpable shalom-breaking.”[3]
Sin is properly understood in a religious context; it is connected to the righteous character
of God and his will for creatures made in his moral likeness. But how did sin come about in
the first place? How could sin and evil emerge in a “very good” world?
The Origin of Sin
God and sin. James emphatically states that evil does not originate with God (Jas 1:13-
17) but with fallen creatures. Yet, citing the King James Version, some claim that the
sovereign God somehow must be the author or cause of evil: “I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Is 45:7). And again,
“Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the LORD commandeth it not? Out of the
mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam 3:37-38; cf. Amos
3:6 and Prov 16:4 KJV). Confusion is removed by noting that the Hebrew word for “evil” or
“wickedness” (ra‘) is better translated “trouble,” “disaster” or “calamity” in these passages.
The word ra‘ is something of a catch-all term for what is negative.
What of a verse like Proverbs 16:4—that God makes the wicked for the day of doom?
Tremper Longman notes that this verse is best understood along the lines of Genesis 50:20:
“You meant evil against me; God meant it for good.” We see this in the New Testament,
where God is able to use evil free human choices (Pilate’s and the Jewish leaders’) to bring
about good ends, such as redemption through Jesus’ death (Acts 2:22-24). Writes Longman:
God uses all things for his good purposes, even evil people and their wicked acts ......... The
verse [in Proverbs] is not a statement that God authors evil. The teaching of the verse fits
well with the general biblical idea that humans author their own wickedness. It is a statement
of God’s control. God can use the very act of human rebellion and autonomy for his
purposes.[4]
In all things—including evil ones—God is able to work for the good of those who love
him (Rom 8:28).
What of a passage like 1 Kings 22:22, where God sends “lying spirits” to Ahab, allowing
him to be deceived? This act should be recognized as divine permission for continued
deception. It turns out that Ahab was already self-deceived, for which he was fully culpable.
God’s activity was not the instigation of lying. We see the same phenomenon in 2
Thessalonians 2:9-11, where God sends a “strong delusion, so that they may believe what is
false” (ESV). However, this passage is preceded by Paul’s mentioning that “they did not
receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” Human opposition to the truth—a resistance
to God’s initiating grace (“so as to be saved”)—led to a further divinely sent delusion.
Such an act is akin to God’s hardening human hearts or blinding eyes in response to
human self-hardening or self-blinding. In John 12:37-38, Jesus’ opponents do not believe
through Jesus’ signs because God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.
Immediately preceding this passage (Jn 12:35-36), we see human self-hardening in the face
of Christ’s gracious invitation and initiative: “For a little while longer the Light is among
you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in
the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so
that you may become sons of Light.” Jesus has already admonished those who are self-
hardened to move toward the Light while they have it. This self-hardening, if persisted in,
may lead to divine hardening—namely, God’s withdrawal of particular graces, giving people
over to the stubbornness of their hearts if he so chooses (Rom 9:15). We see this in Psalm
81:10, where God invites his people, “Open your mouth wide and I will fill it.” Tragically,
the Israelites “did not listen to My voice” or “obey Me.” After this self-hardening, a divine
hardening can come: “So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart” so that they
might “walk in their own devices” (Ps 81:11-12). Just as God does not harden soft—or
potentially soft—hearts, neither does he send deceiving spirits to those who aren’t already
self-deceived.
Now, we recognize that such passages are much discussed—sometimes very heatedly—
in certain theological circles. But we are attempting to make the best overall sense of these
passages, including a clear separation of God from evil, as James 1 emphasizes.
So, God is no more the literal cause or “creator” of evil than certain Old Testament
figures like Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who “caused Israel to sin” (1 Kings 22:52; cf. Num
31:16; 2 Chron 21:11-14; Neh 13:26). The devil, not God, is the beginning of sin—a
“murderer from the beginning . . . and the ‘father of lies’” (Jn 8:44). The God and Creator of
free moral agents is no more the author of sin than the Wright brothers are the authors of
airplane crashes.
The origin of creaturely sin. If God is not the author of sin, how did evil or sin originate
in a “very good” world? The Canons of Dordt rightly assert that the “cause or blame for the
unbelief, as well as all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man” (1.5)—and, before him,
Satan and his co-rebels, who “abandoned their proper abode” (Jude 6). We are told precious
little about how Satan and his hosts turned away from their first estate. Indeed, many biblical
scholars point out that passages such as Isaiah 14 (the king of Babylon) and Ezekiel 28 (the
king of Tyre) utilize exaggerated language to refer not to Satan, but to historic kings who
sought to exalt themselves despite the position of privilege God had given to them.
We can draw a few biblical strands together to offer a basic explanation of sin’s origins in
a good world.[5]
First, sin is a defect rather than a thing in itself; sin or evil is not created by God. Sin or
evil is a kind of absence of what ought to be there; it is a corruption of God’s originally good
creation. It’s like a pothole in a road: the pothole is the absence of road that ought to be there.
Likewise, our first ancestors were created good—without moral defect. But their choice to
disobey was the result of misusing the good gift of creaturely freedom.
Second, the first sin was voluntary. This first sin originated with moral creatures and
could have been freely resisted; nothing about their divinely created nature compelled them
to sin. If their nature required them to sin, then they would have done as they ought. But that
couldn’t be since God would have been blameworthy for an intrinsically flawed creation; no,
God brought about a “very good” one (Gen 1:31). By the free will’s action, a radical, new
occurrence broke into God’s good created order.
Third, the first sin was a turning away from God—the greatest Good—to creaturely,
lesser goods. Why turn away from an all-good, loving Creator in a perfect environment? In
refusing to listen to God’s word but rather a stranger’s in the Garden, our first ancestors
turned away from the Creator, the ultimate, unchangeable Good toward changeable, finite
goods, as Augustine said. That is, certain angels and the first humans sinned when they
voluntarily directed their affections toward the creaturely and away from God—a
misdirected, disordered love. Humans became captivated by and fixated on one particular
fruit tree God made. Sadly, they sinned because they came to believe that lesser, finite goods
could produce that supremely ultimate and most desirable state of affairs—one that only God
could bring about. What happened is that creatures came to be captured by lesser, created
beauties rather than fixing their eyes on God’s uncreated beauty.
So the first sin consisted in a failure to pay attention to the reasons for loving God
supremely and regarding him as the highest Good. Adam and Eve were not simply irrational
or weak-willed, nor were they simply misguided or mistaken in their thinking. Otherwise,
they might be excused. Rather, they failed to attend to the clear reasons that they should have
loved and trusted God. When they did think of God, they focused on his prohibition and his
threat of death rather than his goodness (Gen 3:3; cf. Gen 2:17) and even went beyond God’s
explicit command by highlighting the fruit’s untouchability—something
God hadn’t mentioned (Gen 3:3). Eve came to be fixated on God’s good creation as more
alluring than God—that it was “good for food . . . a delight to the eyes, and . . . desirable to
make one wise” (Gen 3:6).
Finally, we tentatively suggest that the first sin may not have been a sudden turning away
from God but may have been more of a process. Indeed, Old Testament scholars recognize
that we have much condensed material in the early chapters of Genesis, and it seems that
orthodox belief allows for us to see a telescoping of events that unfolded more gradually. As
we saw, Eve’s exaggerated addition—“or touch it”—to God’s original prohibition gives a
hint of something more gradual, and that there may have been a creeping separation between
creatures and God that climaxed in an intentional, thought-out choice to turn away from God.
In the end, Adam and Eve failed to focus on the most crucial reasons (which is a defect)
and volitionally acted (an effect of the failure). Both of these choices, though foreknown by
God, were up to our first parents, who could have chosen otherwise. Their sinful choice was
free, culpable and avoidable—not necessary.
While we are not trying to remove all mystery regarding the origins of sin, we believe our
account makes good sense of the Scriptures and preserves appropriate theological and moral
distance between a perfectly good Creator and evil.
We will explore further dimensions and nuances of the “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thess
2:7) in the next chapter.
Further Reading
Meister, Chad V., and Jamie Dew, eds. God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled
with Pain. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.
Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995. 6Sin
Its Descriptions and Its Results
The Scriptures devote much attention to sin in all of its ugly variety. Sin has the effect of
separating us from God (Is 59:1-2), and it is because of sin that Christ came into the world to
rescue us (Mt 1:21; 1 Tim 1:15). Thankfully, sin is not the final word! But to better
understand our salvation as well as the challenges of the Christian life, we should understand
the nature of sin as well its results.
Descriptions of Sin
Sin as transgression. Sin is transgression against God’s law. In fact, where there is no
law, there is no sin (Rom 7:7). Sin can be volitional, a deliberate choice—and usually it is.
The rebel deliberately violates the law. The sinner who knows to do right, but doesn’t do it,
sins (Jas 4:17).
But sin is not the violation of just any law—laws of logic, laws of parents, laws of state.
Sin is against the law of God. In fact, to violate the law of God is to violate God’s very
character. The great problem is vertical, and from a wrong vertical relationship flow all the
horizontal wrongs (Gen 39:9; Ps 51:4; 1 Thess 4:8). When David said, “Against You, You
only, I have sinned” (Ps 51:4), he did not mean that he had not sinned grievously against
Uriah and Bathsheba and, indeed, the whole nation. Rather, these responsibilities to fellow
human beings pale in comparison to violating God’s character and commands. Not only is
God’s character violated, but sin wounds God too: “How I have been hurt by their adulterous
hearts which turned away from Me” (Ezek 6:9). Sin grieves God’s Spirit (Eph 4:30).
Some may ask, “Why can’t God simply forgive? Isn’t that his job?” Such a question,
however, ignores not only the just character of God, but also the personal responsibility of
humans, as well as the gravity of sin. Should God ignore the violation of his character? And
should God forgive even when people aren’t repentant? The issue isn’t why God finds
it difficult to forgive, but how he finds it possible to do so at all.[1]
Sin is ultimately an expression of idolatry—the creation of a God substitute and a denial
of God’s sovereignty. Transgressing against God’s ways is an assertion of self-sovereignty.
Sin can be both volitional and unintentional. The Scripture itself refers to intentional and
unintentional sins (Num 15:22-31), and both fit the category of “transgression.”
The Bible, however, does not restrict sin to transgression against God’s character and
will. Sin also includes falling short of the moral and spiritual mark.
Sin as falling short. The primary word for sin in the Old Testament (ḥāṭā’) means “miss
the mark”—a word used of missing a target or losing one’s way, as well as the moral
meaning of missing God’s standard of behavior or losing one’s way spiritually. The
translators of the Old Testament chose a word in Greek that had the same basic meaning
(verb hamartanō; noun hamartia). In the New Testament, the singular “sin” can be used to
describe an embedded condition, a state of alienation or a dominating power—not simply
specific individual violations or wrongdoing.
Greek philosophers such as Aristotle did not have a view of sin or depravity. For Plato, to
truly know what is good inevitably leads to doing good. Any failure is due to ignorance. By
contrast, Scripture points out that people can know full well what they ought to do but sin
anyway (Jas 4:17). The biblical concept of a flawed inner state includes a
sinful condition, sinful thoughts and sins of omission.
Sin As a Condition
Before I (Paul) went on staff with a church in Schenectady, New York, in the late 1980s,
Dr. Herbert Mekeel, a noted evangelical leader, had had a long tenure as pastor of this
church. As the story goes, when he would see couples in his congregation with a newborn
child, this bachelor pastor would wryly comment, “Another sinner has been born into the
world!” In a similar spirit, my late father-in-law would occasionally pause after the family
Bible reading to repeat—with a slight smile—what he had heard growing up in Holland:
“Let that sink into your dark, black hearts.”
Most people believe that we become sinners if and when we commit sinful acts. The
Bible puts it the other way around. The Bible teaches that humans come into the world as
sinners (Eph 2:3) and that we sin because we are sinners. According to Scripture, the root
problem is not a poor environment, and sin is certainly not the responsibility of another
person such as a parent: “The soul who sins will die” (Ezek 18:4). The human heart is, from
birth, inclined to evil. This is not the whole story, of course. This does not mean that a person
is incapable of doing anything good (Acts 10:31). Furthermore, our fallenness in Adam is
only “part one” of the story; there is a larger, continuing narrative, in which God invites
human beings to join in the new humanity of the second Adam, Jesus Christ.
Our nature as God created it is good—rationality, creativity, moral responsibility,
conscience, volition. But what God has created has been damaged in every facet of our
being; ours is a marred beauty. Thus even before a person chooses deliberately to transgress
a specific commandment, his condition itself is damaged and tainted. The human heart is
“evil” (Heb 3:12)—“deceitful” and “desperately sick” (Jer 17:9).
Theologian Langdon Gilkey, once imprisoned in a Japanese prison camp during World
War II, wrote about these experiences in his book, Shantung Compound:
Such experiences with ordinary human cussedness naturally stimulated me to do a good deal
of thinking in such time as I had to myself. My ideas as to what people were like and as to
what motivated their actions were undergoing a radical revision. People generally—and I
know I could not exclude myself—seemed to be much less rational and much more selfish
than I had ever guessed, not at all the “nice folk” I had always thought them to be. They did
not decide to do things because it would be reasonable and moral to act in that way, but
because that course of action suited their self-interest. Afterward they would find rational and
moral reasons for what they had already determined to do.[2]
This illustrates what Paul emphasizes in Romans—that the sinful human heart is the root
of our miserable condition—not mere sinful acts. This leads to several related considerations,
such as “flesh” and “Spirit,” original sin and the issue of Pelagianism.
Flesh and Spirit. Although we touched on the matter of flesh and Spirit in part two
(“Law”), we should add a point of clarification here on the sometimes confusing phrase
“sinful nature.” The New International Version uses the term “sinful nature” for the term
“flesh” (sarx) in certain places in Romans and Galatians. According to Romans 8:9, believers
are not “in the flesh” but—in the new realm in which believers dwell through Christ—“in the
Spirit.” That is, when we were “in Adam” (1 Cor 15:22), “natural” (1 Cor 2:14) and alienated
from God, we were “in the flesh.” But now we are “in Christ” and therefore “in the Spirit” or
“spiritual.”[3] Those who are “in Christ” have “crucified the flesh” (Gal 5:24). Yes, we
Christians still struggle with sin (1 Jn 2:1-2), but the language of Scripture indicates that we
who are redeemed have God’s Spirit—the defining mark of belonging to the new covenant
era. Though the battle against sin will not end while we live in this fallen world, we live in a
new realm—“in Christ,” the second Adam—and no longer “in the flesh” because we have
God’s Spirit.
Original sin: Inherited guilt or damage?G. K. Chesterton famously observed: “Certain
new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can
really be proved.”[4] Indeed, the “ancient masters of religion” began with the fact of sin—“a
fact as practical as potatoes.”[5]
Earlier we discussed the origin of sin, but how did this primal sin affect Adam’s
descendants—what theologians call “original sin”? Romans 5:12 is a key text here:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so
death spread to all men, because [eph’ hō] all sinned.” Augustine, following the Latin (in
quo: “in whom [all sinned]”), concluded that Adam’s guilt was imputed to all humanity.
So we have divided opinion on the exact connection between Adam and his descendants.
Some theologians take what we could call the “inherited guilt” view—that Adam’s sin
was imputed to his ancestors and that we too share the blame for that primeval sin—that we
were somehow “with Adam” when he sinned. Another view is the “consequences” or
“damage” view. This view emphasizes that extensive damage has come to the human race
through our original parents, just as negative consequences come to babies born to drug
addicts because of their parents’ actions. This includes alienation from God, alienation from
one another, alienation from creation and alienation within our own selves. In addition, a
sinful tendency comes to us all—although many theologians argue that this damage itself
does not condemn, say, the severely mentally handicapped or those who die in infancy; they
cannot act as morally responsible agents.
Theologian James Leo Garrett notes the consensus about the lack of consensus among
orthodox theologians: “To affirm the reality of sin is easy and to affirm the universality of
depravity is not difficult, but to settle on the relationship of the sin of Adam and Eve to our
sin is indeed difficult.”[6] Biblical scholar Douglas Moo wisely observes: “Perhaps, indeed,
Paul has not provided us with enough data to make a definite decision; and we should
probably be content with the conclusion that Paul affirms the reality of a solidarity of all
humanity with Adam in his sin without being able to explain the exact nature of that
union.”[7] Whatever view one takes, our condition is a miserable one indeed and requires
divine assistance.
Three views of sin. In the history of the church, three views of sin have been categorized.
The orthodox view sees human beings born into a sinful condition through Adam. What is
debated is whether they inherit Adam’s guilt or simply experience the damage wrought
through Adam, including a sinful disposition. In either case, God must initiate salvation
through his Spirit, without whom no one would turn to God. Under the orthodox view, there
is, first, the synergistic view, which emphasizes that God’s initiative requires human response
and cooperation—that humans, freed in their wills, must receive rather than resist the divine
gift of salvation. The second orthodox view is the monergistic view, which states that God
irresistibly bestows salvation without human cooperation.
On the other end of the spectrum is the heretical Pelagian view, named after the British
monk Pelagius (b. 350), whose view diminished the depth of sin and was unjustifiably
optimistic about the human condition. According to A. H. Strong, Pelagianism espouses the
following:
1) That law can command only volitions. 2) That states of the soul can be commanded only
insofar as they are the direct effect of previous volitions. 3) Hence sin consists simply in acts
of volition. 4) That whatever a man has not plenary ability to do he is under no obligation to
do. 5) That there is no such thing, therefore, as innate depravity.[8]
Between orthodoxy and Pelagianism is semi-Pelagianism, which affirms that unaided
human nature can take the first earnest step toward God, and then God responds to this
display of human good will. This view, espoused by John Cassian of Marseilles (A.D. 360–
432), was condemned at the Synod of Orange (in France) in 529. Why? This view fails to
take seriously human fallenness and the need for God’s initiating grace, without which no
one would seek after God (Rom 3:9-18).
Sin in Thought
Many believe that people sin only if they commit sinful acts, but the Bible teaches that
the inner thoughts can be sinful as well (Mt 5:28; 15:18-19). Hatred is not wrong merely
because it may lead to murderous acts. Hatred itself is sin. Or two persons may perform an
identical act—visiting an elderly relative in a nursing home, for example; but one’s motives
may be loving while the other’s is immoral (e.g., visiting because one wants to be included in
grandmother’s will). Failure to conform to God’s character and will is not merely external
but also internal: thoughts, motives and attitudes, as private as they are, can fall short of the
glory of God. The underlying contention of biblical ethics is that every lack of conformity to
God is sinful and wicked. This includes both lack of conformity in action and in motive and
affection.[9]
Sins of Omission
Many Christian prayer books have this confession: “We have left undone those things
which we ought to have done.” We all fall short of God’s glorious character by failing to do
what we ought: “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” ( Jas
4:17 RSV). Consider the slave who buried his master’s money in the ground and squandered
opportunity by doing nothing with what had been entrusted to him (Mt 25:14-30).
We fail to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves—sometimes out of
ignorance and neglect, for which particular offerings were prescribed in the Old Testament
(Lev 5:5-6). The Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1945) contains the confession “there is
no health in us” and the request, “O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.”
Although it is actually a sign of health to recognize we are sick, the confession reminds us of
our profoundly damaged condition, which expresses itself in sins of omission.
Other Aspects of Sin
The unpardonable sin.Universalism is the doctrine that all will be saved or spiritually
liberated; “Christian universalism” affirms that all humans will eventually be saved through
Christ in particular.[10]
A key text that undermines universalism and highlights God’s uncompromising justice is
Jesus’ reference to an unpardonable sin (Mt 12:31-32). Also, John mentions a “sin leading to
death” (1 Jn 5:16-17). Jesus says that this sin “shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or
in the age to come.” Now, theologians do not agree on what this sin is because neither Christ
nor John explained their statements. John’s less troublesome statement seems to refer to
physical death; final damnation is not obviously in view. Christ’s warning, however, does
speak of this, and this passage frightens many sincere Christians: “Have I committed the
unpardonable sin?” Or they may use the similar-sounding language of Hebrews: “Have I
done something that makes it impossible for me to be brought back to repentance?” (cf. Heb
6:6; 10:29).
Rather than wondering whether a damnable word mistakenly spoken or an inadvertent act
is the unpardonable sin, we should remember the context in Matthew 12: Jesus’ hardened
opponents had so reversed light and darkness so as to ascribe the work of Christ by the Spirit
to the power of demons. When people reach such a point of no moral or spiritual return, they
will not be wondering if they have committed this unforgivable sin. This is comparable to the
apostate in Hebrews who is disdainful toward the salvation of God and “has trampled under
foot the Son of God,” “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant,” and “insulted the
Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29).
Ultimately, resisting the call of the Spirit to the end of one’s life can never be forgiven.
But the one who truly repents can find forgiveness, as this is the clear teaching of Scripture.
Though we may not dogmatize about the specific nature of the sin, it certainly is sin against
the Holy Spirit, and it certainly results in a permanent state of alienation from God. Perhaps
the only statement that can be made with assurance is that there is a self-induced state of
mind, a spirit that has so rejected the convicting work of the Holy Spirit that it is no longer
salvable. The sure evidence that tormented souls have not committed the unpardonable sin is
that they long for pardon.
A root sin? Is there a root sin from which all other sins grow? If our highest duty and the
highest wisdom are to love God and others, then is the root sin a misdirected love? Or is the
root sin selfishness (the pursuit of self as the supreme end), from which all evil flows, as
theologian A. H. Strong believed? Or is it simply alienation from God and opposition to his
character and will, as Charles Hodge maintained? Perhaps, as Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas suggested, it is pride, which sets itself up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor
10:5)? Another possibility is unbelief, as the Reformers Luther and Calvin maintained.
Perhaps idolatry, refusing to allow God to be God in the kingdom of one’s life, could be
considered the sin that summarizes the other sins. John Stott wrote that the essence of sin is
humanity taking the place of God whereas the essence of salvation is God taking the place of
humanity. Or perhaps we should conclude that sin is so unutterably evil and so grotesquely
complex that we shall never sort out all its hidden twistings and turnings. Perhaps our very
disagreement serves to underscore the awful, incomprehensible nature of sin—a reminder
that “there is no health in us” and that we must see sin from the viewpoint of the Great
Physician in order to abhor it as we ought (Rom 12:9).
A hierarchy of sin. Many who have read Jesus’ teaching about anger and lust in the
Sermon on the Mount have assumed that, before God, there is no difference among sins.
They conclude that all sins are equally vile and that there is no legitimate gradation in gravity
or guilt-worthiness among sins. Anger and murder are equally wrong—as are lust and
adultery. But Christ never intended to teach that the first beginning of sinful thought and its
mature manifestation in action were equally heinous. That would be a terrifying notion! In
actual fact, Jesus’ teaching about the sinfulness of all degrees of sin would have the opposite
effect: If it is as wrong to desire a woman as to take her by force, why not act on your
impulses? Your guilt is not any greater. The rest of humankind would plead with the one
holding such a doctrine: “If you covet my possessions, please keep it at that level and do not
take them. If you hate me or fail to love me as Christ does, please keep it at that level and do
not assault or kill me.”
There is a biblical hierarchy of both virtue and sin. Love for God takes precedence over
love for my neighbor. Those who sin without knowledge are to be punished on the judgment
day with less severity than those who sin with knowledge (Lk 12:47-48). Teachers of
Scripture and spiritual truth will be judged more severely than those who do not teach the
Scriptures (Jas 3:1). In the Old Testament where specific punishments were prescribed by
God, there was a gradation from capital punishment down to a slight fine, including
unintentional sins as opposed to defiant sins (Num 15:22-35). There are “least
commandments” (Mt 5:19) and “weightier matters” (Mt 23:23). Jewish leaders committed a
“greater sin” against Jesus than Pilate (Jn 19:11). Some insults, for example, are worse than
others, and to speak in wrath is worse than merely feeling it (Mt 5:22).
To hold that all sins are of equal gravity in the sight of God finds no confirmation in
either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Referring back to the Sermon on the Mount,
James mentions the “royal law” and the “law of liberty” (Jas 2:8, 10). This is the Golden
Rule of Matthew 7:12—treat others as you would have them treat you—which is another
way of saying “love your neighbor as yourself.” To fail to love one’s neighbor in one area—
say, committing murder—is to fail in the law of love, even if one does not commit adultery
(Jas 2:11). To break the law of love in one area is a violation of it all (Jas 2:10). So while we
could say that all sins are equally sin, they are not equally sinful. So a ghetto child who steals
a loaf of bread to feed his crippled mother is less guilty than a university professor who
delights in destroying the faith of hundreds of freshmen. Yet which would be punished in the
courts of our land if found guilty of such activity? Sins against God are lightly thought of,
even by Christians, but from God’s point of view they are the most worthy of judgment. We
could make a similar point when it comes to virtue. For example, we have a duty to love, but
those loves—God, family (biological as well as spiritual), strangers—are ordered differently
(ordo amoris). These should not be treated equally.
To better see how God views sin, we should better understand the results of sin.
The Results of Sin
Guilt. Guilt comes immediately to mind as a consequence of sin. C. S. Lewis comments
on three types of people:
I have talked to some who felt guilt when they jolly well ought to have felt it; they have
behaved like brutes and know it. I’ve also met others who felt guilty and weren’t guilty by
any standard I can apply. And thirdly, I’ve met people who were guilty and didn’t seem to
feel guilt. And isn’t this what we should expect? People can be malades imaginaires [i.e.,
hypochondriacs] who are well and think they are ill; and others, especially consumptives, are
ill and think they are well; and thirdly—far the largest class—people are ill and know they
are ill.[11]
Sin in Scripture is almost indistinguishable from guilt (e.g., Ps 32:5).[12] As Lewis
indicated, people may be guilty of violating God’s standard when they may not even know of
it, but Scripture brings them together.
Furthermore, guilt has two elements—namely, blameworthiness and due punishment. In
the atoning death of Christ, we have not only a moral example that inspires love and self-
sacrifice within us (Phil 2:3-8; 1 Jn 3:16). Jesus’ death actually accomplished something for
us with him being our substitute to address our guilt problem: he also died “for you” and
“bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Pet 2:21-25; cf. Gal 2:20). The theologian Anselm
attempted to explain the atonement in Why God Became Man. The incarnate Christ satisfied
the debt humans owed God but couldn’t pay. God, who alone can pay it, becomes human
since humans must pay but are unable. God both demands the debt be paid, but also provides
satisfaction for that debt. Anselm has a point: God is, as Paul says, “just” and the “justifier”
of those who trust in him (Rom 3:26).
Jesus is the faithful Israelite who lives out Israel’s story (as the faithful Son that ethnic
Israel failed to be) and bears the curse of their exile on the tree ( Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13), and
he is also the ultimate human as the second Adam. So Jesus’ death creates a new covenant
people (a new exodus) as well as a new humanity (a new creation). In his death, Christ
restores and enables humans to carry out their role as God’s image bearers, as priest-kings.
But Jesus’ death is also a cosmic achievement, in which Satan and his forces are defeated and
disarmed (Jn 12:25; 16:11; Col 2:15; 1 Jn 3:8); Christ’s death signals the victory over all evil
political powers and oppressive, dehumanizing social and religious structures. These will all
give way to God’s enduring kingdom established through his agent, Jesus of Nazareth, which
will be realized in the new heavens and new earth—a realm free from sin and evil. These are
the lengths to which God has gone to redeem us, purify us from sin and relieve us of our
guilt (Tit 2:14).
Consider this testimony of one who understood God’s view of sin:
Often . . . I have had very affecting views of my own sinfulness and vileness, very frequently
to such a degree as to hold me in a kind of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable time
together, so that I have been often obliged to shut myself up. I have had a vastly greater sense
of my own wickedness and the badness of my heart than ever I had before my conversion. It
has often appeared to me that if God should mark iniquity against me, I should appear the
very worst of all mankind, of all that have been since the beginning of the world to this time;
and that I should have by far the lowest place in hell. When others that have come to talk
with me about their soul’s concerns have expressed the sense they have had of their
wickedness, by saying that it seemed to them they were as bad as the devil himself; I thought
their expressions seemed exceeding faint and feeble to represent my wickedness.[13]
What kind of degenerate criminal could honestly give such a testimony? None other than
the godly theologian Jonathan Edwards, whose philosophical mind was capable of sober-
minded analysis and precise expression. Edwards continues:
My wickedness, as I am in myself, has long appeared to me perfectly ineffable and
swallowing up all thought and imagination—like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my
head. I know not how to express better what my sins appear to me to be, than by heaping
infinite on infinite and multiplying infinite by infinite. Very often for these many years, these
expressions are in my mind and in my mouth: “Infinite upon infinite—infinite upon infinite!”
When I look into my heart and take a view of my wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely
deeper than hell. And it appears to me that were it not for free grace, exalted and raised up to
the infinite height of all the fullness and glory of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power
and grace stretched forth in all the majesty of his power and in all the glory of his
sovereignty, I should appear sunk down in my sins below hell itself, far beyond the sight of
everything but the eye of sovereign grace that can pierce even down to such a depth. And yet
it seems to me that my conviction of sin is exceeding small and faint; it is enough to amaze
me that I have no more sense of my sin.[14]
Such is the response of one who came to understand the biblical view of sin.
As for us, perhaps we can become discouraged by observing the stark contrasts between
the righteous and the wicked in the Psalms (Ps 1; 15; 112), the wise and the foolish in
Proverbs (especially Prov 1–8), and the overcomers and the compromisers throughout the
book of Revelation. This may suggest to the minds of many—especially those with a
particularly sensitive conscience—a hopelessly unattainable sinless perfectionism and the
eradication of all but the purest of motives. Yet we should remember, first, that those who
have a deep knowledge of God, as Edwards, are most keenly aware of their sin. Second,
these contrasts or antitheses between the righteous and unrighteous are important reminders
to us about God’s high standards, lest we become spiritually flabby. Third, the biblical
narratives about heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Moses, David, Peter and many other
saints helpfully remind and encourage us that we are all works in progress and live on this
side of the fall and not in the new heavens and new earth, when we will be fully renewed.[15]
Shame. Most of us are familiar with a “guilt culture,” but what about the concept of
“shame” so common in non-Western cultures? The former emphasizes the legal and moral
whereas the latter emphasizes the social. For example, in a guilt culture, if I am innocent but
others believe me guilty, I will strive to have my name cleared; on the other hand, if I have
done something wrong, even if no one knows it, I may be plagued by guilt feelings. In a
shame culture, what others think of me dominates. If others think I am innocent (even if I
have done something wrong), then there is no apparent problem. This shame-honor culture
encourages the thinking that unnoticed wrongdoing is not an issue. Whereas the social
response to wrongdoing in a guilt culture is to blame, accuse and punish, a shame culture
focuses on ridicule, exclusion, disgrace and reproach. The remedy in a guilt culture is
payment of a penalty and justification (being declared “not/no longer guilty”) while in a
shame culture it is opening up communication and love banishing shame.[16]
Christ’s atonement addresses both guilt and shame. Roman crucifixion was intended to be
a shameful, humiliating punishment of criminals and runaway slaves with the victim dying
naked on a cross on a hill or at a crossroads. Jesus himself experienced the shame of the
cross (cf. Heb 12:2), and he is not ashamed to identify with flesh-and-blood humans like us
and to call us his brothers and sisters (Heb 2:11-14). The author of Hebrews admonishes us
to identify with Christ because of the shame he bore for our sakes in his atoning death. He
bore our shame so that we would not be ashamed before God—even if our identification with
Christ will bring ostracism and reproach from an unbelieving world: “So, let us go out to
Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb 13:13).
Depravity.The doctrine of “depravity” emphasizes that none of us is as good as we should
be in any facet of our humanity—whether in our conscience, will, reason, imagination,
emotion or relationships. Of course, this doesn’t mean that each of us is going to sink to the
depths of a Hitler or a Stalin (though lest we think we stand, let us take heed to remember
Stalin was once a seminary student!). No, depravity expresses the truth that while none of is
as bad as we could be, none of us is good as we should be.
Despite the depths of depravity, it has not obliterated the human nature God created. John
Calvin himself affirmed that the image of God remains despite the fall. In us all is “some
residue of intelligence and judgment as well as will”; indeed, “there are still some sparks
which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is
endued with intelligence”; he is capable of “civil order and honesty”—and we could add, the
cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude (see chapter seven). To assert
otherwise “is repugnant not only to the Word of God, but to common experience.”[17]
Furthermore, God’s “common grace” to all (as distinct from “special” or “saving” grace
that is received by some) enables human beings to create culture, to organize governments, to
engage in social activities and volunteer organizations, to enjoy the delights and bounty of
the natural world (Acts 14:17; 17:24-25).
Addiction. Are addictions to substances such as alcohol and drugs or to behaviors such as
watching pornography, playing video games and gambling more like a disease? After all,
isn’t an addiction like an overpowering force—a force that seems difficult or even impossible
to resist and thus needs “treatment”?[18] While the word addiction is not strictly biblical, we
do see in Scripture pictures of sinful enslavements, of being mastered by sin.
First, apart from a biblical approach to addiction, we should note that there are degrees of
addiction. This could range from “milder” surreptitious behavior to taking even illegal risks
to experience a certain “rush” or “high.”
Second, it would be more accurate to speak of a “sinful habit” or “sinful obsession.”
Humans, though being enmeshed in sin or “enslaved” to it (Rom 6:16-22), are still morally
responsible for their actions. And though it is difficult to break a longstanding habit, the habit
often begins through experimental compromises, self-deception, rationalization and
conscious choices, which develop into full-blown addictive behavior. The sinful obsession
did not just happen, but often people “addict themselves” when they had greater power to
choose than at present. Though we should show sympathy and concern for those entrenched
in sinful obsessions, we should honor their humanity by treating them as moral agents rather
than victims who have no choice.
Third, as with Alcoholics Anonymous, the beginning of one’s turnaround is
acknowledgement that one has a problem. Sometimes one’s determination to break out of an
addiction is jolted into reality by the shame of having been discovered—as when a porn-
using father is found out by his teenager or when a man visiting prostitutes is arrested in a
police sting operation.
Fourth, change usually takes place slowly through painful, difficult steps, and help
involves multilayered support, from friend or family accountability, solidarity and honest
sharing with fellow-strugglers, prayer, spiritual disciplines, and the like. This journey
involves brokenness, self-humbling, unlearning old habits and learning new ones.
Theologian Cornelius Plantinga warns of simplistic categorizations of addiction: “We
must reject both the typically judgmental and typically permissive accounts of the relation
between sin and addiction; we must neither say that all addiction is simple sin nor that it is
inculpable disease.”[19] Sin and addiction could be viewed as largely, but not completely,
overlapping circles. In the “quarter moons” that do not overlap, we can find examples of
addictions that include little or no actual sin (e.g., a baby’s chemical addiction contracted
while in utero) or examples of sin that do not exhibit addictive processes (e.g., a slothful or
ungrateful person, who is not necessarily addicted).
In a similar vein as Plantinga, Kent Dunnington rejects the simplistic extremes of mere
disease and choice. Addiction results from a habitual behavior that becomes relatively
permanent; so when provoked by a stimulus, a person consistently, easily and “successfully”
responds in light of a certain objective in mind. And in a bored culture with much downtime
available, addictions spring up all the more readily; these addictions afford a consuming
engagement, free from the fragmented, compartmentalized and humdrum realities of
everyday life.[20]
Fifth, in theological terms, addiction has to do with idolatry, with finding our longings
satisfied in something other than God. In the end, “the addict will do anything for his idol,
including dying for it.”[21] The addict is confronted with the theological question: “In whose
name is your help? What is your only comfort in life?” Turning to God, clinging to God,
walking with God is the ultimate hope for overcoming one’s addiction problem.
Finally, let us not forget the demonic element in which the devil gains a foothold in our
lives, perhaps allowing anger to turn into seething rage (Eph 4:26-27). In his Confessions,
Augustine wrote about his battle with lust and how each choice he made served as a link in a
chain that further bound him:
I was held fast, not in fetters clamped upon me by another, but by my own will, which had
the strength of iron chains. The enemy held my will in his power and from it he had made a
chain and shackled me. For my will was perverse and lust had grown from it, and when I
gave in to lust habit was born, and when I did not resist the habit it became a necessity. These
were the links which together formed what I have called my chain, and it held me fast in the
duress of servitude.[22]
Judgment. God judges sin because of his own nature, and what is not morally right
cannot coexist with him. God is “holy”—set apart or separate from sin (Ps 5:4; Hab 1:13). So
it stands to reason that separation is the inevitable result of sin, just as Adam and Eve were
removed from the garden sanctuary, where they met with God (Gen 3:8); their intimate
companionship with God was ruptured. Sin brings separation from God, the source of life:
“The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23; Is 59:1-2).
God in his grace gives humans a probation period—our lifetime—to reverse the choice of
our first ancestors (Heb 9:27). God desires that none perish, and he commands all people to
repent (2 Pet 3:9; Acts 17:30). His many kindnesses are designed to lead to repentance ( Rom
2:4). But if the rejection of God’s grace continues till physical death, the judgment—
separation from God—is finalized. Humans get their final “divorce” from God. As C. S.
Lewis said, the door of hell is closed from the inside.
This separation is self-inflicted, ultimately chosen by the sinner, which God allows. Is
there an alternative for those who refuse to repent, for those who repeatedly resist God’s
influences (Acts 7:51). The judgment of separation is the choice of the sinner: “My people
did not listen to my words and Israel would have none of me; so I sent them off, stubborn as
they were, to follow their own devices” (Ps 81:11-12 NEB)—or as Paul reiterates in Romans
1: “God gave them up. . . . God gave them up God gave them up” (RSV).
To focus on sin as we have is, perhaps to some, the sounding of the depths of some vast
and unfathomable cesspool. Indeed, we have been probing the edges of the horrors of
impenetrable darkness. Scripture emphasizes the depths of human depravity, but it reminds
us that this is not the end of the story. Sin falls between creation and redemption in the
unfolding of Scripture’s theodrama—the story of God’s engagement with humankind that is
moving toward consummation with a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness
dwells (2 Pet 3:13). The grim revelation of our sin against the splendor of God’s glorious
grace should prompt us to cast ourselves on God by crying out, “God, be merciful to me, a
sinner,” and by taking refuge in our great Redeemer. We are great sinners, but we have a
great Savior.
Further Reading
Dunnington, Kent. Addiction and Virtue: Beyond the Models of Disease and Choice.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
Graham, Gordon. Evil and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Keller, Timothy. Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the
Only Hope That Matters. New York: Dutton, 2009.
McFadyen, Alistair. Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of
Sin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Meister, Chad, and James K. Dew Jr. God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with
Pain. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2013.
Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006.
7Becoming a Virtuous Person
Introductory Comments on Virtues and Vices
“A good name is to be more desired than great wealth,” Proverbs reminds us. “Favor is
better than silver and gold” (Prov 22:1). In our quick-access, high-tech, user-friendly society,
the cultivation of virtue seems further removed from our thinking than ever. Bumper stickers
advocate performing “random acts of kindness”—as though they are completely detached
from character. The influential philosopher Immanuel Kant contributed to the detachment of
duties from character. For him, doing the right thing is a straightforward obligation—without
consideration for the character behind that choice or the array of previous choices that have
shaped that character. Even before this, however, the Reformers emphasized duty and de-
emphasized the importance of what we call “virtue ethics”—an ethic of virtuous character.[1]
The Greeks emphasized the cardinal virtues: wisdom (or prudence), courage, temperance
(or self-control) and justice (i.e., fairness, lack of favoritism). These four virtues are
interrelated, and they are connected to the mind (intellect), the passions (of the body and
other deep human desires) and the will. Prudence (wisdom) comes from the mind’s
understanding and attending to what is good. Self-control (temperance) is the regulation of
bodily passions and strong desires directed toward the good. Courage (fortitude) regulates
other human passions toward the good in the face of hardships and obstacles that must be
faced. Justice directs the will toward order in our dealings with others. So temperance and
courage are concerned with keeping the inner sphere in order, and justice the outer sphere;
both these spheres are directed by wisdom that guides the will toward the good. One author
uses the analogy of government: self-control (temperance) and courage (fortitude) are the
Home Office; justice is the Foreign Office; and prudence (wisdom) is the Prime Minister.[2]
These four virtues were commonly found on Greco-Roman “virtue lists,” and New
Testament writers included them in their virtue lists. But they added other virtues that
reflected the character of Christ (e.g., Gal 5:22-23; Col 3:12-15). At points, Christian virtue
lists included humility and meekness, for example, but these were at odds with what certain
Greek thinkers valued.
Aristotle is the philosopher most closely connected to the topic of virtue. To live well—
what he called eudaimonia, or well-being, flourishing—requires virtue. Virtue is a life lived
according to reason. Being virtuous strikes the balance between the extremes
of deficiency and excess—what he called the “golden mean.” For example, the mean or
balance between cowardice (a deficiency) and foolhardiness (an excess) is courage.
The Christian church recognized, however, that life “in Christ”
involves theological virtues—faith, hope and love—to animate and deepen those virtues. So
while humans even without the Spirit of God can grow in virtues such as kindness or
generosity—part of God’s “common grace” to all—the Spirit of God helps us to deepen and
enrich these virtues in light of Christ’s own life, character, self-sacrificing example at the
cross, and resurrection. For example, believers can become even more courageous in the face
of antagonism, persecution and death than they could by the sheer exertion of the will and
self-discipline. Why? Because they understand that Christ laid down his life for them, that
the innocent One died courageously while entrusting himself to the Father’s will.
The Christian understanding of grace and the corresponding virtue of humility are
missing in Aristotle. Humility was seen as a weakness in classical philosophy. For Aristotle,
the “excellent” or “virtuous” person should never be in another’s debt, but that means having
no room for humbly receiving the grace of God and being grateful in light of it. Nor does
Aristotle have any place for sin or evil, as the Christian does. And for Aristotle and other
Greek philosophers, the virtues were cultivated by the individual; in the Christian faith, the
virtues arise in the context of community life in the Spirit.
Jesus’ vision of virtue is a far grander vision than Aristotle’s. It is a vision that sees virtue
(the fruit of the Spirit) as part of the new creation that God is producing for the new heavens
and earth. He follows the Old Testament’s vision of the Spirit’s future outpouring—like
waters in a desert—to produce moral fruits: righteousness, justice, peace, holiness, and joy
(Is 32:13-20; 35:1-10; 44:3-4; 49:7-13; 61:1-11). This new covenant creation of a “kingdom
of priests” and a “holy nation”—a renewed humanity—will issue forth in the ruling of the
new creation after Christ returns. This virtue-shaping takes into account the need for human
dependence on God, the centrality of love for God and others, the depth of human sinfulness,
the need for divine grace and forgiveness, and the crux of the Christ event to give shape to
the cultivation of virtue.[3] We should not separate the cultivation of virtue from the
empowering work of the Spirit; as we daily submit to the Spirit’s rule—being “filled with the
Spirit” (Eph 5:18)—he continues to transform our character.
When it comes to vice, the church has highlighted the “seven deadly sins”—pride, envy,
anger/wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony and lust. In Scripture, we see in Eden the beginnings of
three key vices taking shape—bodily pleasure (or physical appetite, lust), covetousness
(greed) and pride (glory). Eve saw that the fruit was good for food (bodily appetite), a delight
to the eyes (greed), and desirable for making one wise (pride) (Gen 3:5-6). Similarly, Satan
tempted a hungry Jesus to make bread (appetite), to display his powers for self-glory (pride)
and to gain the world (covetousness) through compromise. As the second Adam, Jesus
successfully resisted Satan (Mt 4; Mk 1; Lk 4), and he did this by a lifestyle of embodying
purity, engaging in service to others, and by fasting and prayer (more on this below).
Furthermore, because he faced genuine temptation but yet was faithful in carrying out the
Father’s will, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted (Heb 2:18). Though
Jesus was sinless, obedience did not come automatically. He learned obedience through the
things he suffered (Heb 5:8; cf. Lk 2:52). Although we cannot here address the relationship
of the divine and human natures in Jesus of Nazareth,[4] Christians should not dismiss the
moral struggle and temptations of Jesus with “Well, Jesus was God, after all.” No, Jesus was
not play-acting. As the truest human, Jesus models for us how to live in faithful obedience to
the Father in the face of moral struggle and human weakness. We are called to be imitators of
our Exemplar (1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Jn 2:6).
Another point about vice is that it actually affects our ability to think clearly and
rationally. Many people assume that their moral lives don’t affect their reason—that
conscience and cognition can be cordoned off from each other. However, the Scriptures
emphasize how vice darkens and corrupts the mind (Rom 1:21; Eph 4:18). The agnostic
thinker Aldous Huxley wrote that he and his intellectual peers objected to morality because it
interfered with their quest for sexual liberation; thus, he frankly admitted, they were able to
come up with rationalizations to justify their lifestyle.[5] Yes, self-deception and suppressing
the truth in unrighteousness are commonly connected to rationalizations for a promiscuous
way of life; this process often takes place at a subconscious level, and this self-deception
leads to a downward spiral of further rationalization and moral degradation.
Practicing Virtue, Avoiding Vice
Proverbs 4:23 is a powerful reminder to attend to the cultivation of our character: “Watch
over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life.” Jesus warned
hypocritical religious leaders of his day that although they looked good on the outside—like
cleaned cups and whitewashed tombs—they are “full of robbery and self-indulgence” and
“uncleanness”: “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Mt 23:25-28).
In the Beatitudes (from the Latin beatus, “blessed”), Jesus highlights the character of
disciples: realizing their own spiritual poverty before God; mourning for their own sins and
the sins of others; having a controlled strength; being passionate about justice and committed
to the will and rule of God; showing mercy to others because they recognize their own
debt to a merciful God; being undivided in loyalty and devotion to God; being reconcilers of
broken or damaged relationships; and bearing up under and even rejoicing in persecution for
the sake of Christ (Mt 5:3-12). James, who expounds on the Sermon on the Mount,
highlights some of these character qualities that demonstrate heavenly wisdom: “But the
wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good
fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in
peace by those who make peace” (Jas 3:17-18).
Peter offers another virtue list: diligence, faith, moral excellence, knowledge, self-
control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love. These virtues, which should
characterize us believers—in fact, they should be “increasing”—will render us useful and
productive for God’s kingdom (2 Pet 1:5-8). Indeed, Peter urges that his audience
be eager or diligent about the pursuit of these virtues (2 Pet 1:10). Although people can be
“fanatical,” having a zeal without knowledge (Rom 10:2), properly directed zeal is an
important virtue (cf. Is 9:7; 59:17; Jn 2:17; 2 Cor 9:2). Believers are to be “zealous for good
deeds” (Tit 2:14; 1 Pet 3:13; cf. Rev 3:19). Paul admonishes believers: “Never be lacking in
zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord” (Rom 12:11 NIV). Remember that zeal
is not mere busyness or activity or ambition. True zeal is the result of our intentional mindset
to dedicate ourselves to the One who has given himself for us (Heb 12:1-3), but it can be
stirred up by God’s Spirit through fellowship with zealous, serious-minded believers as well
(Heb 10:24-25) and through engaging in acts of service for others (Rom 12:7-8).
Paul’s famous list of virtues, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), depicts the firstfruits of
the new creation. It stands in contrast to the vices that characterize human fallenness—the
“deeds of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-21). What many fail to notice is that these Christian virtues,
except for self-control, are corporate virtues.[6] Love is a self-giving, self-sacrificing
commitment to others (cf. Gal 2:20). Joy is characteristic of life together (Rom
14:17; 15:13). Joy is often linked with a well-ordered peace among believers (rather than
dissension)—another community matter (Rom 14:17; 15:13; Eph 2:14-17). Patience deals
with showing forbearance toward others (1 Cor 13:4: “love is patient”). Kindness actively
pursues the good of the other (1 Cor 13:4: “love is kind”; cf. Eph 2:7). Goodness is related to
kindness but is more all-embracing; when we practice it, it takes the form of “doing good to
all” (Gal 6:9-10). Faithfulness is trustworthiness toward God and others (e.g., 1 Cor 4:1-2; 1
Cor 1:18; Col 1:7); this flows from our faith in God, having entrusted ourselves to God’s
utterly faithful character (cf. Rom 3:3). Gentleness refers to strength under control—like a
well-trained horse—which places the interests of others ahead of oneself (cf. Mt 11:25-
26; Col 3:12).
How do we increase in virtue and diminish the hold of sin in our lives? First, keep in
mind that corporate virtues imply community life and corporate worship. Worshiping
together in spirit and truth with fellow believers actually contributes not only to our spiritual
growth; studies show that worshiping together impacts our emotional maturity—that is, we
move beyond our own self-defined interests to concern for the larger common good. Our
emotions are shaped by what we care about, and a deepened commitment to one another will
help develop a deepened character.[7] Our emotions—and thus character—can be shaped by
Spirit-directed worship that is guided by hearing and reflecting on God’s Word. Indeed,
episodes of emotion such as giving thanks (1 Thess 5:18), rejoicing (Phil 4:4), setting one’s
hope in God (Ps 42:5, 11; 43:5; cf. Ps 71:14) and taking courage (Ps 27:4; Jn 16:33) are not
only commanded but are to be enacted.[8] Did you catch that? We have a duty to hope, a duty
to be joyful, a duty to be thankful. By God’s grace, we can cultivate a frame of mind that
doesn’t give way to despair, gloominess and grumbling. And as we engage with godly
believers in worship and fellowship, we will exhort one another to carry out these emotion-
and character-shaping commands (cf. Heb 10:24).
Horace said, “To flee vice is the beginning of virtue.” But there is more. Paul tells us to
discipline ourselves “for the purpose of godliness” (1 Tim 4:7-8). Some Christians stumble at
this point: Isn’t the Christian life a matter of grace? Shouldn’t we simply do God’s will
because we feel inspired and inwardly moved to do so? Doing God’s will should be our
delight, right? Perhaps it feels “phony” to discipline ourselves rather than feeling freedom in
doing the right thing. On the other hand, some Christians emphasize that believers must
simply grit their teeth and “do their duty” to obey Christ’s commands. If you don’t feel it, big
deal! Just get on with it! After all, the Christian life is about an obedient faith, not feelings.
So which is it, delight or duty? Actually, both aspects emphasize something important in
the cultivation of virtuous character. Think about learning to play a musical instrument:
before we can feel freedom and delight in playing, we need to learn notes, understand
musical theory, practice scales and arpeggios, and know how to sight-read. Experiencing
musical pleasure is preceded by a lot of repetitive “duties” involving hard work and
perseverance. The same is true of language learning or playing sports.
In other words, doing our duty is important in shaping character so that doing God’s will
becomes second nature to us.Duty matters, but character matters more, and with a developed
character comes delight in living wisely. This is why Paul said that when we have a Spirit-
shaped character, then we are in good shape as far as God’s will for us is concerned, and we
are actually keeping the ultimate intent of the Mosaic law anyway (Gal 5:23).[9]
The development of character is not simply a transformation of the soul, but of
the brain as well. By cultivating new habits and patterns, physical changes take place. As one
cultivates virtuous habits, new neural pathways are carved out in the brain so that these
patterns become second nature. For example, research with obsessive-compulsive disorder
(OCD) patients has demonstrated that by the establishing of counter-patterns to combat
compulsions, the brains of these OCD patients change. Or take London taxi drivers, who
must qualify by passing a rigorous exam. To receive their certification, they have to know all
of the 25,000 streets of London, including which are one-way and two-way streets, and
whether they remain two-way streets during rush hour. Studies have shown that these taxi
drivers have enlarged brains in light of the serious memorization they have done.
This is not only a good argument against the idea that the soul or self is nothing more
than the brain. It also reinforces the fact that virtue can become a habit, a settled way of life.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover of Harvard Medical School speaks of these new bio-neural pathways
that are shaped through habit formation:
The neocortex is the part of the brain that we might consider as the seat of the will It is
also the part of the brain whose connections between the neurons will be slowly modified
over time, strengthening some connections, weakening others, and eliminating some entirely
—all based on how experience shapes us. This ongoing process embeds the emerging pattern
of our choices ever more firmly in actual tissue changes. These changes make it that much
more likely for us to make the same choice with less direct effort the next time—and that
much more difficult to make a different choice.[10]
Think of how monastic movements have emphasized vows of poverty, chastity and
obedience. This isn’t surprising since three central areas of temptation are money, sex and
power. So, a way of life devoted to cultivating the virtues of contentment, self-control and
servanthood is a proper countermeasure to temptations toward vice.
To form Christian character, God’s Spirit utilizes the life-shaping importance of the
spiritual disciplines. These include both engagement (study, prayer, meditation, celebration,
service, submission, worship, confession, fellowship) and abstinence (fasting, silence,
solitude, frugality, chastity, secrecy, sacrifice). Authors such as Dallas Willard and Richard
Foster have emphasized the central role of these disciplines in the journey to Christlikeness.
Though the work of God, the Spirit’s fruit does not come automatically—even if certain
changes in some believers are more pronounced at conversion than in others. Cultivating
character must be intentional and require diligence and attention. This is part of “working
out” our salvation (which—note well—has been “worked in” to us), and this process requires
relying on God’s grace and power, because “it is God who is at work in you, both to will and
to work for His good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13).
Unfortunately, some believers may view spiritual disciplines and the pursuit of virtue
legalistically. They want to please God because they are intrinsically motivated because they
love God. They want to obey God because this is the right thing to do, not because they
might get caught, they’ll disappoint others, or they’ll be meeting with a weekly
accountability partner tomorrow. But perhaps we should look differently at these extrinsic
motivations. They have a rightful place as a gift of God’s grace as we move toward virtue
and obedience—just as children are trained by painful discipline (Heb 12:5-14). It is better to
do the right thing for a lesser reason than not to do the right thing at all. The believer who
checks in with his accountability or prayer partner or spiritual mentor recognizes he needs
community assistance and support. Every believer needs others who can help stir him up to
love and good deeds (Heb 10:24-25). What the individual may not do on his own he is more
likely to do with the encouragement and support of the family of God. Avoiding pornography
on the Internet because a faithful brother or sister will be getting a list of all the sites you’ve
visited through a website filtering service is a gift from the Lord. Christians should avoid
either-or thinking here, as though extrinsic motivators have no place whatsoever in spiritual
formation. Believers should thank God for such gracious steppingstones in the direction of
greater virtue and more consistent obedience. Furthermore, to be mired in guilt and shame
after failure can become a discouraging vicious cycle unless one takes concrete actions to
counteract such failures in the future—actions that include opportunities to confess freely
and safely, gracious accountability and specific preventative measures. Doing so is a mark of
repentance—not simple regret (2 Cor 7:7-12).
And just as we cooperate with God’s Spirit in order to become virtuous, Christlike
persons, we can become persons of bad or deteriorating character through the daily choices
we make. We can grieve or thwart the Spirit’s desire to produce virtue in us by failing to
“guard our heart with all diligence.” The tragic example of playwright Oscar Wilde serves as
a sobering reminder:
The gods had given me almost everything. But I let myself be lured into long spells of
senseless and sensual ease Tired of being on the heights, I deliberately went to the depths
in search for new sensation. What the paradox was to me in the sphere of thought, perversity
became to me in the sphere of passion. I grew careless of the lives of others. I took pleasure
where it pleased me, and passed on. I forgot that every little action of the common day makes
or unmakes character, and that therefore what one has done in the secret chamber, one has
some day to cry aloud from the house-top. I ceased to be lord over myself. I was no longer
the captain of my soul, and did not know it. I allowed pleasure to dominate me. I ended in
horrible disgrace.[11]
Scripture itself points to such negative examples so that we might avoid such
disobedience and character-corrupting choices and pursue godliness (1 Cor 10). As children
of God, we have already been accepted by him through Christ (Rom 14:3; 15:7). But in the
pursuit of Christlikeness, we please God: we “have as our ambition . . . to be pleasing to
Him” (2 Cor 5:9).
Having looked at some of the foundational considerations about virtue and vice, let us
look at a sampling of them in the next two chapters.
Further Reading
Foster, Richard. The Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2002.
Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ. Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 2002.
Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives. New
York: HarperOne, 1999.
Wright, N. T. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York: HarperOne,
2009.
8Self-Control And Bodily Appetites; Greed and
Contentment
Tragically, the very divinely given gifts of food, sex and sleep can become sources of
temptation. Indeed, they have been abused and perverted by humans throughout history.
Think of the God-given bodily desire or drive for food and drink. The perversion of this is
gluttony and drunkenness. The gift of the human sexual drive can be twisted into all forms of
sexual promiscuity. The human need for sleep can be perverted into slothfulness.
Indeed, these vices have often been given a religious justification.[1] Take food and drink:
gluttonous feasts would be held in honor of the Roman god Bacchus, the god of wine and
feasting. Then there’s sex: religions in the ancient world such as Canaanite religions of the
ancient Near East included cult prostitution. Within Hinduism, there are “tantric” sexual
rituals and phallic symbols. What about sleep? Fatalism is characteristic of certain schools of
Hinduism with their endorsement of the caste system and karma: one cannot do anything
about one’s station in life, since it is payback for what one did in a previous life. In fact,
many Hindus believe that helping needy people in lower castes jeopardizes the kindhearted
person’s own karma in the next life because is trying to defy this cosmic law of cause and
effect.
We can look at vice not only from a religious angle, but a sociological one as well. A
study of a hundred American cities honed in on five of them as the “most sinful.” This study
used the seven deadly sins as the criterion: envy (crimes of burglary, larceny and car theft);
gluttony (estimates of each city’s obesity rate); greed (“the lower the percentage of
disposable income donated, the higher the assumed greed”); lust (number of strip clubs per
capita); pride (the number of plastic surgeons per capita); sloth (the “inactivity rate”—the
percentage of the city that is not physically active).[2]
With playful irony, the late playwright Wendy Wasserstein gives five commandments to
promote S-L-O-T-H: sit instead of stand; let yourself go; open your mouth and let anything
you feel like enter; toil no more; happiness is within me.[3]
Philosopher Simon Blackburn, by contrast, writes in his book Lust that lust is “essential.”
He seeks to reclaim unencumbered lust for humanity and rejects that there can be any truly
disordered sexual desire.[4] Lust is an enthusiastic bodily desire for sexual pleasure for its
own sake, and Blackburn wants to remove negative associations from this word. (Of course,
some Christians have erred in their assumption that sex is intrinsically dirty, and Blackburn
reacts to this false picture.) In the sexual act, he asserts, two persons move toward human
completion in their longing for unity. Of course, the God-given desire is to be completed in
the context of marriage—a picture Blackburn repudiates. Let’s look at this matter more
closely.
Vices and Bodily Appetites
Lust.In the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, several words are
used to express strong desire—for good things as well as evil—though in the New Testament
the chief words came to be used primarily for wrong desire. The essential thrust of the Greek
word epithymia (“lust, strong desire”) is that it is an inner impulse that can be a strong
“trigger” for the will. The word for “desire” can be used positively—such as a person who
“desires” (epithymei) to be an overseer in the church (1 Tim 3:1). The negative aspect
of epithymia is the desire for satisfaction of pleasure and avoidance of nonsatisfaction such
as pain.[5]
Impurity, another vice, is often associated with both sexual lust as well as spiritual
defilement (idolatry). Both of these “defile” a person (2 Cor 6:14-18; 1 Thess 4:3-7).
In Ephesians 5:3-4, Paul mentions defiling sins such as immorality and impurity—along with
filthiness and coarse jesting (Eph 5:3-4). Paul urges the alternative course to take—namely,
“giving of thanks.” This is a common feature in Paul’s writings—not simply to prohibit
participation in vices, but to encourage engagement in virtuous living. Paul mentions
“putting off” vices that belong to our old way of life “in Adam” (the “old man”), but he
exhorts his readers to fill that vacuum by “putting on” like a garment those character
qualities pertaining to our life in “Christ,” the “new self” (e.g., Rom 13:12-14; Eph 4:20-
24; Col 3:9-14).
Later in the book we address the topic of sexual lust, but we should note here that an
intentional, disciplined reorientation of mind is required. For example, in the face of sexual
temptation, we should not only think of the duty to flee such temptations (2 Tim 2:22) as well
as the negative consequences our actions may bring—damaged relationships with God and
humans, guilt and shame, and damaged character—but as believers we must direct our minds
toward the fact that indulging sexual lust is a cheap and superficial pleasure (cf. Heb 11:24-
25). We should remember that true, abundant living, though it involves self-denial, is the
only way to become the humans we were meant to be (Jn 10:10; 17:3; Phil 3:7-10).
And to put the matter into even clearer perspective, the object of one’s sexual lust—
whether in a photo or in person—is a person whom God loves purely. This is a person for
whom Christ died and thus a fellow human being for whom one can pray and show spiritual
concern. That individual is another’s son or daughter who (in pornographic depictions) is
being exploited, objectified, degraded by others.
Gluttony and drunkenness. Overeating is identified as sin in both the Old Testament
(Deut 21:20; Prov 23:21) and the New Testament (Lk 21:34). Given sparse mention of it in
Scripture, one wonders why the medieval church cataloged this as one of the seven deadly
sins. Like drunkenness, about which the Scripture says much more, gluttony is a sin of
excessive intake. Now some may be overweight because of glandular imbalance rather than
overeating; indeed, a glutton may eat excessively even if this is not evidenced outwardly. An
added reason for discipline at the table is the need of others in the world who do not have
enough to eat, which should encourage us to sacrifice for those in need. Thus, to eat
intemperately is to violate the revealed will of God.
To counteract this vice, the spiritual discipline of fasting reminds us just how attached we
may be to food to achieve contentment and well-being. In fasting, we focus on God—
illustrating that “man shall not live by bread alone” (Mt 4:4)—and that our bodies should be
our slaves rather than our masters (1 Cor 6:13; 9:27).
What of drunkenness? It is condemned throughout Scripture (Deut 21:20; 29:19; 1 Sam
1:14; Prov 23:20, 29-35; Is 5:11-12, 22; 28:1-8; 56:12; Hos 4:11; 7:5; Joel 1:5; Amos
6:6; Hab 2:15-16; Lk 21:34; Rom 13:13; Gal 5:20; Eph 5:18; 1 Thess 5:7-8); the judgment of
it is severe. The momentous act of church discipline—disfellowshiping—is assigned to the
drunkard (1 Cor 5:11). An even stronger divine judgment comes on those who refuse to
repent: the drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9).
In our discussion of addictions in our overview of sin, we noted that treating alcoholism
as an illness or a disease is misguided and even harmful. It suggests the alcoholic is a victim
and bears no responsibility. However much a person is in bondage to this sinful habit,
though, the initiating cause for most acts of drunkenness was some agent’s deliberate choice
at some point in her past.
We will not review the matter here, except to emphasize that despite alcoholism’s vise-
like grip, drunkenness is a sinful habit that calls for confession and repentance—the first step
in the quest for freedom from bondage. No wonder Alcoholics Anonymous emphasizes not
only need for outside assistance (what we would call “grace”), but also a person’s
responsibility for choices made and for wrongs done to others.
Not only does the Bible condemn acts of drunkenness vigorously, but in places it speaks
against the use of alcohol as a beverage: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And
whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise” (Prov 20:1; cf. Prov 31:4-5; Is 5:11). Church leaders
were not to be “addicted to wine/much wine” (1 Tim 3:3, 8; Tit 1:7).
Having said this, however, we note that Scripture does not teach total abstinence as God’s
requirement of all his people. Abstinence was a requirement for priests (Lev 10:8-10),
Nazirites (Num 6:3-4) and John the Baptist (Lk 1:15). But Christ drank and was even
(falsely) accused of being a drunkard (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34). Nowhere does the Bible explicitly
forbid drinking alcoholic beverages.
Though both of us authors see potential dangers with alcohol, we approach the question
somewhat differently.
McQuilkin’s perspective. Why do so many Christians take a strong stand for total
abstinence? Is such a stand biblically permissible? I believe total abstinence is the most
biblical position in twenty-first century America. The principle is one of giving up my rights
for the welfare of others (Rom 14; 1 Cor 8; 10) in a situation that is radically different from
Bible times. In the biblical culture where water was scarce and often polluted, wine was the
simplest way of purifying drinking water and was the common mealtime beverage. It was
mixed with water, up to two hundred parts water to one part wine. In fact, it was considered
barbaric to drink wine that was only half-and-half.[6] Because of the common use of high--
alcohol-content beverages today, we have problems the people of Bible days could not have
imagined.
In the United States nearly half the population drinks, and 8.5 percent are alcoholics
(around 18 million). The result? Around 40,000 children born with mild to severe fetal
alcohol syndrome (including brain damage and growth retardation); this is the leading cause
of mental retardation. From 700,000 to two million Americans each day will be treated for
alcohol dependency. Alcohol contributes to 100,000 deaths per year and to 40 percent of all
traffic fatalities. Alcohol is involved in 86 percent of homicides and 60 percent of sex crimes.
Each year, 183,000 rapes and sexual assaults are alcohol-related. Twenty percent of suicides
involve alcohol.[7] But the human loss to families and to the drinker himself—who can
measure it?
The only certain way to avoid alcohol- or drug-influenced thinking, speaking and
behavior and to avoid addiction is not to take the first drink or the first dose of a drug.
Though others may not reach the same conclusions from these data, I conclude that the
production, sale and use of beverage alcohol and addictive or mind-altering nonprescribed
drugs are incompatible with biblical principles. I am, indeed, “my brother’s keeper,” and I
may, by my example, prove a stumbling block.
Copan’s perspective. I hesitate in urging total abstinence since the Scriptures themselves
suggest the festive, social, celebratory place of alcoholic drinks as a gift from God. Again,
Jesus’ own example does not suggest total abstinence. Jesus made fine wine from water ( Jn
2:1-10). Indeed, “he came eating and drinking” alcohol and was thus called “a glutton and a
drunkard” (Lk 7:34 NIV).
In the Old Testament, God allowed the Israelites to enjoy (in moderation, of course) wine
and even “strong drink”: “You may spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for
oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall
eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Deut
14:26).[8] God himself provided Israel with “curds from the herd, and milk from the flock,
with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat—and you
drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape”—a picture of strong drink ( Deut
32:14 ESV). The future celebration of God’s redeemed people includes choice food and
strong “aged wine” (Is 25:6).
At the Lord’s table in Corinth, believers were getting drunk on wine ( 1 Cor 11:20-21). So
Paul rebuked them, but he did not ban wine thereafter. It seems that both in the Old and New
Testaments, alcoholic drinks of varying strength were seen as both a blessing from God
(Rom 14:14; Col 2:20-23; 1 Tim 4:1-5; cf. Mk 7:15) as well as a potential danger. Christians
strong in conscience have an obligation not to lead into sin those who do have a conscience
about consuming it, and they should be cautious against any misuse of alcohol.
Sloth. God not only gave the delights of sex, good food, and drink when appropriately
engaged in. He made our bodies to require rest. But even the blessing of sleep and rest can be
abused. Protestants didn’t come up with a biblical work ethic. The book of Proverbs strongly
denounces sloth, urging the sluggard to learn lessons from the diligent, hard-working ant
(Prov 6:6-11). One ought not to love to sleep (Prov 13:11; 20:13). Paul reinforced a strong
work ethic in at least six of his letters. He urged working as unto the Lord; he highlighted his
own example of working with his hands so as not to be a burden to anyone; he insisted that if
a person did not work, he should not eat, and that a person should provide for oneself and
others through hard work (Eph 4:28; Col 3:23-24; 2 Thess 3:10-12; 1 Tim 5:8). God, with his
Son, is the model worker (Jn 5:17). Work is not a result of the fall. Rather, it is a blessing and
a gift from God by which we honor and worship him (Rom 12:11; Eph 6:6-8; Col 3:22-24).
The Virtue of Self-Control
The term self-control (enkrateia) is used in the New Testament only four times (Acts
24:25; Gal 5:23; Tit 1:8; 2 Pet 1:6; in verb form, see 1 Cor 5:9; 9:25); its opposite—lack of
self-control (akrasia or akratēs) is also found (1 Cor 5:7; 2 Tim. 3:3). Self-control concerns
carrying out what one intends to do, despite influences and appetites to the contrary. Job
exemplified this by averting his eyes from looking on a virgin to lust after her ( Job 31:1),
while David sinned grievously through failing to keep his body under rigorous control (cf. 1
Cor 9:27). Daniel purposed in his heart not to be defiled with the king’s menu (Dan 1:8). One
who controls one’s spirit is more powerful than the military conqueror (Prov 16:32).
We have already addressed ways in which we can pursue self-control to counteract the
vices of lust, gluttony, drunkenness and sloth. Our focus should not be on mere avoidance of
indulging bodily appetites, but on finding fulfillment in God and being willing to have God
change our desires—to get to the point that we say, “Why would anyone get involved in
that?” Or as 1 Peter 4:3 puts it, “For you have spent enough time in the past doing what
pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and
detestable idolatry” (NIV). That said, a lot of people trapped in sexual vices such as
pornography do not want different desires. Like Augustine, they say to the Lord, “Give me
chastity, but not yet”—or they want to live a “moderated religion”—religion “up to a point,”
as C. S. Lewis put it. And this is as good as no religion at all.[9]
How do we develop new desires? Dallas Willard’s “VIM” strategy is helpful. It
emphasizes embracing the right vision of reality and goodness—for example, seeing another
person as God’s image-bearing creation and the object of God’s love. We take on the
right intention—determining by God’s grace to become like Jesus and to put off vices that
prevent this. Finally, we appropriate adequate means to carry this out. And what are these
means to carry out this intention? These instruments of God’s Spirit are the various spiritual
disciplines like prayer, fellowship (including accountability), reading Scripture, meditation
and fasting. Christians need to recover these virtue-building disciplines so that, by God’s
Spirit, we might more fully become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Again, this
self-control comes through reliance on God’s grace: “the Lord knows how to rescue the
godly from temptation” (2 Pet 2:9). Nor is this self-controlled lifestyle a bleak, joyless
stoicism. Rather, it is a channeling of our energies into the greatest possible fulfillment. And
as we engage in this process, a false VIM will be replaced by a Christ-centered one.[10]
Covetousness (Greed) and Contentment
Scripture clearly prohibits greed or coveting (cf. Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21; Mic 2:2; Rom
13:9). In the New Testament, covetousness or greed (pleonexia) gets significant mention (Lk
12:15; Rom 1:29; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 2:5; 2 Pet 2:3, 14). Paul calls it “idolatry” (Col
3:5; cf. Eph 5:5), as material things become a God substitute and thus warrant divine
judgment (Col 3:5-6). No wonder we cannot serve God and money (Mt 6:24). To covet can
involve both desiring and seeking for something, someone, some position, some recognition
or some pleasure not in the will of God. One can desire or long for something another has
simply because that person has it and I don’t—a phenomenon we readily witness in young
children but perhaps not in ourselves: “you are envious and cannot obtain” (Jas 4:2).
Coveting can include a grasping preoccupation toward material things or a sexual fixation on
another person (e.g., Ex 20:17).
Of course, desire to have things is not evil in itself but rather an excessive, corrupted,
destructive desire. Consumerism seems to be part of the American ethos; think of how people
mindlessly “shop till they drop” or wander malls to see what they can purchase. Jesus said so
much about money, possessions, greed, contentment and generosity. Why? Because our
attitude toward money is a spiritual barometer—an idolatry-meter. Money is a key area
where humans are often substituting created things in place of the Creator (Rom 1:23). Also,
greed is a root sin (1 Tim 6:10) that can lead to stealing, adultery, murder and a host of other
sins. Further, if the chief commandment concerns love, then covetousness opposes it:
covetousness is interested in getting; love is interested in giving. Finally, greed destroys the
one who covets since one can never be satisfied. Oil tycoon and one of the world’s wealthiest
men, John D. Rockefeller, was asked how much money it takes to satisfy a person. His reply
was: “Just a little bit more!”
How then do we cultivate a spirit of contentment? What are the blessings that come to a
contented spirit?
Contentment and generosity. The vice of greed stands in contrast to the virtue
of contentment (autarkeia). A godly person should be content with the basics—food and
clothing—and to cultivate this attitude is actually a great gain (1 Tim 6:6-8). Paul said he had
learned to be content in whatever circumstances—whether in abundance or humble
situations, whether well-fed or hungry (Phil 4:10-13). And let this be an encouragement to us
—Paul “learned” to be content: it was a process to cultivate a mindset of gratefully receiving
with an open hand the positive circumstances God bestows—not grasping them tightly—and
to find strength and joy in Christ in trying circumstances.
The word contentment was used by the stiff-upper-lipped Stoics, who prized self-
sufficiency. By contrast, Paul was saying that in any and every circumstance he could be
content because Jesus gave him strength (Phil 4:13). Or as the author of Hebrews writes,
“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said,
‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’” (Heb 13:5 ESV). We covet because we fail to see
our completeness in Christ (Col 2:10) and our adequacy coming from him (2 Cor 3:5-6)—
that in Christ, we have all the needed resources to live a godly life ( 2 Pet 1:3). In the same
spirit, Job asked his wife whether they should receive only good from God but not adversity
(Job 2:10).
The vice of coveting is eclipsed by a spirit of contentment and gratitude. As it turns out,
these virtues erode other vices such as pride and faithlessness (unbelief). A lack of gratitude
and contentment makes it easy to covet. This vice also includes worrying about things that
unbelievers routinely do—matters we should be entrusting to our heavenly Father (Mt 6:25-
32).
But notice that coveting is also diminished by a spirit of generosity. Paul sees the
incarnation and self-giving death of Jesus as the model for Christians to follow in their
giving: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for
your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9).
Jesus earlier had said, “Freely you received, freely give” (Mt 10:8).
In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul brings together the virtues of contentment and generosity:
Contentment: “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix
their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to
enjoy.”
Generosity: “Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to
share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they
may take hold of that which is life indeed.”
Contentment is marked by a spirit of generosity—giving of one’s resources. We highlight
here different types of givers: infant, childhood, youth, mature, and a special ability given by
God.
Infant: No giving. The infant level of giving is not giving. Did you ever see a generous
infant? They are in the getting business. Many professing Christians reflect the attitude of
Spirit-less unbelievers, who are “natural” and “fleshly” (1 Cor 2:14; 3:3); they are lives that
do not exhibit life in the Spirit or the fruit of the Spirit. We see this infant mindset in the
“health-and-wealth gospel”: “I’m a child of the King; so I go first class. Nothing but the best
for the blessed.” Others may proclaim Christ from selfish motives (cf. Phil 1:15), milking
their “followers” to support their posh lifestyles. They appear to have more kinship with
Simon Magus, who thought the gospel was a way to make money, than with Jesus ( Acts
8:18; cf. 1 Tim 6:5).
Childhood: Impulse giving. Others give in response to the impulse at the moment. They
generally live in a self-oriented way but give when there is strong emotional appeal—
perhaps a malnourished child on the TV screen or the prospect of having one’s name in print
or on some building. Impulse giving has its place in the context of a generous, giving spirit
that attempts to respond to needs as they arise. But impromptu giving by itself does not
reflect the kind of giving that should be inspired by the incarnate, self-giving Christ.
Youth: Legalistic giving. Another category of giving is rooted in the Old Testament’s
principle of the tithe—giving the first 10 percent of one’s income to God. On the one hand,
tithing can be legalistic. On the other hand, for those with low incomes, a tenth may be quite
a sacrifice. But even if one gives legalistically, that is far better than not to give at all ( Mt
23:23; Lk 11:42; cf. Mal 3:8-12).
Mature: Management and sacrificial giving. The wise, mature-minded disciple will
view material goods as a matter of wise management and means of sacrificial giving. They
are inspired by the clear-minded vision that theirs is an enduring heavenly citizenship (Phil
3:19) and by the self-emptying example of Jesus, who gave himself so that we might benefit
through his sacrifice (2 Cor 8:9). Management and sacrifice are two sides of the same coin—
both pictures of robust discipleship.
Management giving assumes that God owns all the believer has, not simply a tenth, and it
is motivated by a clear grasp of eternal values. Christians are simply stewards of all God has
entrusted to them. The parable of the unjust, but shrewd, steward (Lk 16) doesn’t commend
doing slipshod work or cheating. However, the parable’s point is highlighted by the master,
who commends him for at least shrewdly planning for the future. Likewise, Jesus’ disciples
should not be foolish with money by failing to plan ahead; rather they should lay up treasure
in heaven (Lk 16:8-9).
That the Christian is a manager—not an owner—is taught throughout the New
Testament, not just in Luke 16 (Mt 6:19-34; 19:16-29; Mk 12:41-44; Lk 12:13; 17:7-
10; 19:21-26; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 20:35; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 2 Cor 8–9; Gal 6:6-
10; 1 Tim 6:5-10, 17-19; Heb 10:34; 13:5). The manager must be thoughtful, making hard
decisions about where to invest most wisely and strategically to advance God’s purposes and
how much he may honestly invest in his own “traveling expenses” on the way to his eternal
home. He will not mindlessly put money in the offering plate as it goes by on a Sunday
morning. He will give to people in need, but not in a way that breeds unhealthy dependency
or laziness. He will consider giving to ministries that are truly making an impact for Christ
locally and around the world. He will consider supporting missionaries in foreign lands,
which, incidentally, is steadily declining in American churches. He will open his home as a
place of refuge and blessing. But there is another facet to giving as a mature follower of
Christ.
In terms of sacrificial giving, the spiritually mature are also motivated by love, inspired
by the self-giving example of Jesus, who became poor so that we might become spiritually
and everlastingly rich (2 Cor 8:9). Second Corinthians 8–9 gives the most thorough
exposition on Christian giving, which calls for cheerful sacrifice. Consider how David
refused to offer a sacrifice that cost him nothing (2 Sam 24:24). Jesus commended an
impoverished widow, who gave from her meager income “all that she had to live on” ( Lk
21:1-4). In a society dedicated to luxurious living, wastefulness, sparing no pains to live a
hedonistically inspired “good life,” Christians are not only to be good managers of God’s
resources, but sacrificial givers. Just as Jesus laid down his life for us, we ought to do so for
others, including sharing our resources with the needy, particularly in the believing
community (1 Jn 3:16-17). Christians in poor Macedonia lived this way by giving both
cheerfully and sacrificially (2 Cor 8:1-4; cf. 2 Cor 9:7)—even while those in prosperous
Corinth did not.
Special grace: Faith.Based on the New Testament’s teaching in particular, wise
stewardship and sacrificial giving are the clear model of giving for the disciple of Christ. Yet
Christian disciples should contemplate how to give even more sacrificially of their resources
and pray for deepened faith in God to do so. John Wesley is an example of one who sought to
limit his own expenses so that he could give away more and more of his income to advance
God’s kingdom. In his lifetime he earned over thirty thousand pounds, but he gave the vast
majority of this away, keeping only what he needed to live on for himself. He lived simply
that others might simply live.[11]
In addition, the Bible speaks of the gift of faith (1 Cor 12:9), which makes it clear that
certain people are given a special ability to trust God in ways that others do not—like George
Mueller of Bristol or Hudson Taylor, the noted missionary to China. Those who have the gift
of faith in the area of finance move beyond managing wisely and giving sacrificially. They
believe God—and ask him alone—for what they do not have and cannot get in order to
accomplish some task for him.
The blessings of contentment.What are the benefits of a contented spirit? First, those
possessing the virtue of contentment will likely be generous with their resources. They are
not ruled by money and thus can give generously. Various studies and surveys show that
those with less money overall tend to be more generous than the more tight-fisted wealthy.
One survey divided respondents into the categories of “money contented” and “money
troubled”: “Those who are most satisfied with their financial situation are not necessarily
those with the highest income; contentment turns more crucially on a range of psychological
factors. Inflation is partly in the eye of the beholder.” The money-contented “rule their
money rather than let it rule them.” And even though the money-troubled were generally
better off, they had frustrated material aspirations: wanting things they couldn’t afford, being
deep in debt, saving little, believing their friends had more money.[12]
Second, in commanding us not to worry but to trust him, God promises the faithful
manager and generous giver to supply their needs according to God’s glorious riches ( Mt
6:19-34; 2 Cor 9:8; Phil 4:19). Ultimately, God will guarantee that investments made for his
kingdom are never wasted but are eternal (Lk 9:12-13, 16-26; 18:18-30; 1 Cor 15:58; 2 Cor
9:6; Gal 6:6-10).
Third, while Christians should never be dissatisfied, they can justifiably be unsatisfied in
certain respects. To be dissatisfied is to demonstrate unbelief and ingratitude—a destructive,
corrosive sin (Rom 1:21). A godly person can be unsatisfied with the spiritual or moral status
quo—as Paul said, pressing on “toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in
Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:14). Even in material things, Christians may be content but legitimately
work hard to improve their condition.
Using time well and setting priorities. Improving one’s condition can include not
merely money use, but also becoming less wasteful and wiser about time use (Ps 90:12; Eph
5:15-16). One of Jonathan Edwards’s famous “resolutions”—written just before his twentieth
birthday—was: “Resolved: Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most
profitable way I possibly can.” Cultures do not view time the same way. Some emphasize the
significance of an event (e.g., meeting a person or going to church services) while others
place greater stress on punctuality and efficiency. In either case, we must take care not to
squander the gift of time—moments that, once used, can never be recaptured. And those
living in more punctuality-oriented societies should not so highly prize efficiency that
relationships are given lesser priority.
We should evaluate our use of time on a regular basis. In doing so, consider three steps of
setting priorities, examining for inefficiency, and starting at the bottom and cutting. In setting
priorities, we intentionally become directed persons rather than driven persons; this includes
learning to say no to people sometimes, which can keep a check on the tendency toward a
prideful “savior complex,” to preserve God-centered priorities.
First, begin with the non-negotiables: fellowship with God, care for family, vocational
responsibilities, physical exercise and rest/leisure, church involvement, maintaining
relationships. Keep in mind that all of these are important, and we should not necessarily
gauge importance in terms of “time spent on X.” That is, God is most important, but that
does not mean that we spend more time reading the Bible than we do at our jobs or with our
families. This is thinking in compartmentalized terms (“first God, then family, then church,
then work,” etc.). Rather, as figure 8.1 indicates, we should take a more integrated approach
—namely, viewing God at the center of all areas of life and the inspiration of all we do; all
that we undertake should honor and glorify God.[13]
All of the spheres shown in figure 8.1 and the relationships they involve—family and
home life, work, church, personal time, community involvement, political concerns—are
important and matter to God. All of them are to be guided by love for the triune God and
dedication to his will. So when Paul says, “Speak the truth to one another,” he does not mean
first to God, then to our family, then to our colleagues at work. Rather, this command is to be
integral to all our relationships, and God’s Word gives guidance for our conduct in those
relationships. Daily, we must make discerning choices about obligations in each of these
spheres and to walk worthily of the calling to which God has called us (Eph 4:1-2).
Figure 8.1. An integrated approach to priorities
Though we must still make wise judgments about the use of our time, our point of
orientation should be love for God, which includes love for others. This approach to
prioritizing has several benefits. First, it reduces the frustration concerning the “God first,
family second, church third” way of thinking. Second, this approach aims at integrating
every aspect of life by bringing everything we do under the lordship of Christ rather than
compartmentalizing between “sacred” and “secular” (1 Cor 10:31). Reading the Bible is a
sacred act, but so is changing a child’s diapers or repairing a customer’s car. Third, this
approach allows for flexibility and adjustment without guilt when a new set of circumstances
arises. The demands on stay-at-home parents can be exhausting, and they may not have as
much time as they would like for Scripture reading or attending a Bible study. But they can
still glorify God in the thus-and-so-ness of life.
As we look at our priorities, we next need to examine for inefficiency. We should review
not only the non-negotiables (what we must do), but we should also look down the line to the
negotiables (what we want to do and what others may be expecting or asking of us) and then
to the “unnecessaries” and especially the waste-of-time categories. God gives each of
us twenty-four hours a day to do what he has called us to do, and we may be squeezed and
harried because we fill our lives with what is wasteful, or we fail to make the most of the
“dead time” or periods of waiting. Use such times for Scripture memory, prayer or catching
up on reading to enrich the soul. Take a book wherever you go. On May 14, 1781, John
Adams wrote in a letter to his son John Quincy, “You will never be alone with a poet in your
pocket.” We can also “double up” by running errands with our children or spouse; we can
spend time with family as we engage in church ministry together. Every activity should be
examined for ways to economize in time and still get the job done. My (Robertson’s) late
wife Muriel scoffed at the proverb, “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.” “Very few
things are worth doing well,” she insisted, and accomplished in her life important things that
two or three ordinary mortals might hope to do.
Finally, after making work and play as efficient as possible, if we still come short, we
must start at the bottom of the priority list and cut. Are we devoting more time to certain
activities than God demands—for example, spending longer hours on the job for a higher
standard of living but at the expense of time with family? Ironically, our society has more
leisure time available than our ancestors could have dreamed possible, but we are
nevertheless tempted to be discontented and covet more time—in violation of God’s
command.
Further Reading
Austin, Michael W., and R. Douglas Geivett, eds. Being Good: Christian Virtues for
Everyday Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Blomberg, Craig L. Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000.
DeYoung, Rebecca Konyndyk. Glittering Vices: A New Look at the Seven Deadly Sins and
Their Remedies. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009.
Howard, Grant. Balancing Life’s Demands: A New Perspective on Priorities. Portland:
Multnomah, 1986.
Roberts, Robert C. Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007.
Spiegel, James. How to Be Good in a World Gone Bad. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.
9Humility, Faith and Hope
In this chapter, we look at other key virtues: humility, faith, courage and hope. We also
note their failure or vices: pride, fear and despair.
Defining Pride and Humility
How should we understand pride and humility? Is it a sin to take pride in one’s country or
family—or God? Is humility thinking “I’m no good”? Do we all just need a good dose of
self-esteem or try to “find our authentic selves” as the solution to our identity issues?
Pride. Pride is in a class by itself as a—if not the—root sin. Why? Because it is a
fundamental distortion of reality—reality about ourselves, about others, and about God. Of
the ten different Hebrew root words for the concept of pride, almost all have the idea of
being high up, exalted, elevated, grand, inflated, puffed up—as well as broadened or widened
—whereas many of the twelve root words for humble and the twenty root words for
humiliate have the basic idea of sink, bow down, depress, put down, subdue. The New
Testament takes up these concepts of pride and humility and fleshes them out—particularly
in light of the crucified Savior whom Christians serve and follow.
Pride is a lie. It is a distortion of reality in that we adopt an inflated view of ourselves.
Pride is a false advertising campaign because we suspect others won’t accept who we really
are.[1] Sinful pride is thinking of self more highly than I ought to think ( Rom 12:3). Thomas
Aquinas considered pride an “immoderate” desire or estimation of oneself “that is not in
accord with right reason”—that is, ascribing something to ourselves that we do not actually
possess.[2] To be proud is to live in a world propped up with falsehoods about ourselves,
taking credit where credit isn’t due. It can take the shape of an autonomous self-confidence
that operates independently of God or even attempts to displace God’s sovereignty, including
the assumption that we determine our own future (Jas 4:15-16; 1 Jn 2:15-17; cf. Ps
52:1; 74:4; 94:3). It is an attitude the leads to self-destruction (Prov 16:18).
Proud people takes themselves far too seriously! They are easily humiliated, offended or
hurt, but not easily humbled—nor can they laugh at themselves. To prevent offense or hurt,
they mount a skillful defense, utilizing various ego-protection techniques. These distortions
of reality include the following:
Rationalization. This makes failure appear inevitable (e.g., “In a sex-saturated society,
how can you avoid lust?”). We “made a mistake” or “messed up”—anything but “sinned.”
Projection. We might look at others engaging similar sins and remind ourselves that “lots
of other people are doing the same thing.”
Repression. We “stuff” guilty feelings, and therefore bring psychological and spiritual
damage to ourselves by refusing to seek forgiveness (Ps 32:1-5), but, of course, we can’t
overcome a sin that we refuse to acknowledge.
But didn’t the apostle Paul take “pride” in his work of preaching the gospel where it had
not been preached? Yes, but it was “not beyond measure”; it was a boast “in the Lord” (2 Cor
10:14-18). Paul was “proud of” early Christians’ progress in their faith and in their proper
use of God-given abilities (2 Cor 7:14; 9:3-4). As a Christ-dependent disciple (Phil 4:13),
Paul recognized he could only “boast in the Lord” (2 Cor 10:17) and in the cross of Christ
(Gal 6:14)—a recognition of divine reality, which actually expresses gratitude to God for his
grace. One may also legitimately exult in other blessed realities—like one’s children or
parents (Prov 16:31; 17:6).
In summary, pride is setting on self a value greater than it merits. Businesspeople who
rely on the impregnable fortress of their wealth, college professors who trust in their
autonomous reason, scientists who arrogantly dismiss all reality beyond the natural, beauty
queens who consider their charms invincible, athletes who congratulate themselves on their
physical power and skill—all are relying on deadly illusions. And so are the preachers who
believe the compliments their admirers heap on them, or the saints who consider themselves
rather holy.
Humility. What then is humility? It is a realistic assessment of ourselves—and this
includes our weaknesses and strengths. For a world-class pianist to say, “I really can’t play
piano all that well,” is not expressing true humility. It is out of touch with reality—
a false humility. True humility doesn’t deny abilities, but rather acknowledges God as their
source. So the pianist, while having worked hard to perfect the gift, succumbs to the
temptation of pride by supposing to have arrived at the pinnacle of musical success without
outside assistance. No, the pianist should acknowledge other influences and opportunities—
and of course the Creator who ultimately bestowed these gifts (Jas 1:17). What do we have
that we didn’t receive (1 Cor 4:4)? To be humble is to know our proper place before God and
others—with all of our strengths and weaknesses.
Humility also reflects a commitment to embrace truth wherever it leads—as best we can
discern it. This dedication to truth will include adjusting my theological understanding or
refining my moral judgments. Though “open-mindedness” can sound wishy-washy, G. K.
Chesterton compared open-mindedness to eating: we open our mouths not to eat just
anything we can put into our mouths, but to bite down on what is actually good to eat! This
means being a good listener and seeking to understand another’s position or mindset so that
we do not mischaracterize or caricature another point of view (Jas 1:19).
Then what about God? Is he proud? It may come as a surprise to read that, no, God is
actually humble. God has a realistic view of himself—not a false or exaggerated one. By
definition, God is the greatest conceivable being, which makes him worship worthy. (Our
word “worship” is a kind of contraction of the Old English word weorthscipe—or “worth-
ship.”) Although God is sovereign, there are some things he does not want credit for (Jer
7:31; 19:5). God doesn’t “think more highly of himself than he ought to think” (Rom 12:3),
but thinks accurately about himself.
The tri-personal God—Father, Son and Spirit—is other-oriented within himself and
other-directed toward us creatures. This helps us to better understand God’s humility. God is
a self-giving God within himself and toward us. Thus, the “high and exalted God” dwells
“with the contrite and lowly of spirit” (Is 57:15). Psalm 113:5-6 describes a God who
“humbles himself” or “stoops” to look on us creatures. Jesus of Nazareth describes himself
as “humble in heart” (Mt 11:29)—and this just after his exalted claim to be the only revealer
of the Father (Mt 11:27; cf. Jn 14:9). God’s humility is most clearly seen in the incarnation:
the Son of God did not cling to his heavenly privileges but emptied himself, humbling
himself to the form of a slave who would die naked on a cross (Phil 2:5-11).
John’s Gospel makes this connection clear: Jesus’ being “lifted up” on the cross (Jn
12:32; cf. Jn 3:14-15; 8:28) is both literal and figurative: it is both the physical act of being
raised up onto a cross and the figurative reference to exaltation and honor from God, which
results in drawing the nations to salvation (Jn 12:32). Notice that Christ’s humiliating death
is precisely when he is “glorified” (Jn 12:23-24; 13:31-32). God’s great moment of glory is
in the experience of the greatest humiliation and shame—when he takes the form of a slave
and suffers death on a cross for our sakes. This is how low God is willing to go for our
salvation!
Furthermore, God’s command for us to worship him is due to God’s concern that humans
be in touch with reality—that God is God—rather than creating our own God substitutes and
thus damaging ourselves (Rom 1:25). To worship God is to align ourselves with reality rather
than with fiction and falsehood. God seeks worshipers not because he is needy and insecure
(cf. Ps 50:12). Rather, God desires that people worship him in truth(Jn 4:23-24). As one
theologian rightly said, it’s “truly godlike to be humble as it is to be exalted.”[3]
Humility is a virtue of beauty in a polarized and increasingly rude society. Christians
must take care to be civil in conversation and courteous in our speech rather than follow the
contentious and dismissive spirit of the age. A gracious demeanor not only reflects a humble
disposition but presents a winsome witness for the gospel. This is true not only in society, but
also in the church, where theological disputes can become quite vicious. We authors have
seen our share of theological witch-hunts, divisiveness and marginalization toward brothers
and sisters in Christ—and the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles as a result
(Rom 2:24). True humility keeps a proper handle on reality and does not overblow secondary
theological differences; it keeps the main thing the main thing: “In essentials unity, in non-
essentials liberty, in all things charity.”[4]
Areas and Forms of Pride
One can take pride in a number of ways: pride of position (Mt 23:6-7; cf. 1 Pet 5:3),
ability and achievement (1 Cor 2:1-3; see 1 Cor 4:7), possessions (Mt 6:24; 1 Tim 6:17),
knowledge (1 Cor 3:18), spiritual or moral attainment (Rom 14:4, 12). We can easily
compare ourselves to others to puff ourselves up—and we usually pick lesser examples: “I’m
a pretty good person. I’m not like a Hitler or a Stalin.” We can easily elevate our moral or
spiritual greatness by comparing ourselves to the besmirched or even evil specimens of
humanity. Or we can do so by putting others down. But God will not judge us by how we
compare to others, who may have had far fewer opportunities than we have—opportunities
we have perhaps misused and squandered.
In his devastating critique of the modern temperament and the scientist in particular, one
of the great thinkers of the twentieth century, Charles Malik, put his finger on the basic
problem:
More serious is what happens to the scientist himself. . . . First is what I call the pride of
knowledge and power. This is the subtlest failing. Because he controls his subject matter, the
scientist slips into the feeling that he is a kind of god. People speak of the humility of the
scientist; in truth I find very little humility among scientists. They know, it is true, but what
they do not know is not only greater but far more important than what they know. The
scientists are not noted for loving or sacrificing for one another They are more celebrated
for their rivalries and jealousies, and for making sure that their ideas and discoveries are not
plagiarized by others but are exclusively attributed to them If we are to characterize the
spirit of the scientific community, we will have to say that in the final analysis it is passion
for knowledge with a view to power.[5]
God puts all such pride in its place: whoever boasts should boast in the Lord rather than
in might, riches or glory (Jer 9:23-24).
What are some forms of pride? Some are highly visible, others so subtle as to go
undetected altogether. Consider the levels of visibility in the form pride takes.
•
Boasting. The most obvious evidence of pride is straightforward boasting. The
braggart is so roundly condemned in Scripture that few serious Christians are guilty of
boasting.
•
Seeking praise. From birth, each of us works hard at “public relations”—ranging from
the childhood “Watch me!” that gives way to more civilized and sophisticated ways of
getting center stage. We may reject allowing our name to be published with the notice of our
gifts, but it is not as easy to give with total anonymity (Mt 6:2-4). What matters is not self-
commendation, but the one “whom the Lord commends” (2 Cor 10:18). If you come across a
humble person, C. S. Lewis noted, all you will think about him is that “he seemed a cheerful,
intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him.” He is someone who “will
not be thinking about himself at all.”[6]
•
Accepting honor. Graciously receiving a heartfelt compliment from another, which
we turn into a prayer of thanks to God, is not prideful. However, promoting an image of
excellence that eclipses the honor due the Savior is idolatrous.
•
Self-sufficiency. While we can be grateful for God-given capabilities and various
honed skills, we must be careful not to adopt a spirit of independence that no longer depends
on God or gives him thanks. As we note later, the technologies and conveniences of a
modern world can prop up the illusion that we are in control and can get along without God.
And if we routinely find it difficult to apologize and seek forgiveness or are regularly
defensive and insisting on our own way, these are telltale evidence of a proud, brittle, self-
reliant heart that is unwilling to confess one’s own spiritual and moral bankruptcy, to
consistently accept God’s evaluation, and to rely steadily on God’s resources.
•
Pride masquerading as humility. While self-denigration may sound humble, it may
actually reflect an attempt to gain attention. Putting ourselves down may simply be an
attempt to beat another person to it, thus lightening the blow or perhaps attempting to elicit
an ego boost from the other person. And fear to attempt something may stem from pride—
unwillingness to let my weakness be seen, fear of being viewed a failure. Self-pity is often
unadulterated pride, grieving that others did not see me for the truly great person that I am! If
we are preoccupied with our own selves—even in the pursuit of boosting our self-esteem—
humility will elude us.
Self-Image and Self-Esteem
How, then, does the question of self-image and self-esteem relate to pride and humility?
We hear two contradictory voices—one emphasizing being crucified with Christ, that it is no
longer I who live, that I must “hate” or “deny” myself to be Christ’s disciple, that I am a
“worm and not a man” (Ps 22:6). On the other hand, there are voices within the church
saying the opposite: “A strong self-image is indispensable to successful Christian living; a
poor self-image is the greatest cause of failure among Christians.”
I (Robertson) was sitting in the hospital room, awaiting my late wife’s return from
emergency surgery. It was Sunday morning, and I turned for encouragement to television.
“The solution is not to look at the problem,” said the well-known preacher, “but to look
at . . .” He paused and lifted his hands and eyes toward heaven and concluded, “the
possibilities!” I thought of the possibility that the anesthesiologist might have erred. The
preacher continued to encourage me: “What I want to help you to do is have faith
in . . . you!” I didn’t really find much consolation in that thought as the projected hour-and-a-
half surgery was now stretching into three hours. I must confess, however, a powerful
magnetism and strong fascination in what I learned of “possibility thinking.” More people
were desperately looking for jobs than at any time since the Great Depression; so “tough
times never last, but tough people do” was a constant refrain that morning. “Believe it and
you can achieve it!” In fact, “nothing is impossible unless . . .” I was waiting for a biblical
quotation, but he concluded, “unless you have negative thoughts.” There were other slogans
intended to build a good self-image: “It takes guts to leave the ruts.” “The me I see is the me
I’ll be.”[7] I’m sure this would have been great therapy under other circumstances, but not in a
hospital room, waiting with rising anxiety—or all the more in the face of death.
John Calvin begins his Institutes of the Christian Religion by saying that wisdom is
comprised of two parts—the knowledge of God and of ourselves. And if we want to truly
know ourselves, we must first come to know who God is: “No man can survey himself
without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and
moves.”[8] Our self-understanding must be shaped by a proper understanding of God.
In God we find ultimate security through relationship with him, and in him we find
ultimate significance through a God-given purpose in life. To become what we were meant
to be means being shaped into the image of Christ, the archetypal human. If we try to clutch
our lives as the masters of our souls and the captains of our fate, the abundant life will elude
us (Mt 16:25; Jn 10:10).
It’s been said that the egotist is always “me-deep” in conversation. But such me-
centeredness can eventually lead to getting sick of ourselves. And don’t we often find
greatest satisfaction in life when we have served the needs of others rather than becoming
glutted by attending to self-concerns? If we follow Scripture, a true “self-image” is shaped
by God’s view of us—an image based on reality.
What about self-esteem? Since the 1970s, educational institutions, psychologists and the
cultural mood have placed great weight on the need to boost self-esteem. But this has proven
to be an utterly misguided pursuit. Psychology professor Roy Baumeister argues that recent
research has shaken many psychologists’ faith in self-esteem. Promoting self-esteem has not
only wasted money, but it has brought harm to people. In comparison to other cultures,
Americans tend to overrate and overvalue themselves. Like the children in Garrison Keillor’s
Lake Wobegon, we as a people think we’re “above average.” Rather than rewarding
achievement, hard work, self-control and self-discipline, we give trophies to every kid on the
soccer team and awards to anyone who just shows up for a meeting.
Yet self-esteem boosting—telling ourselves that we’re good and great and wonderful—
has not produced a more virtuous or more intelligent generation. One study of fifteen
hundred American tenth graders revealed that student self-esteem rose after getting good
grades and fell after getting bad grades. Notice that “self-esteem” followed the grades; it
didn’t precede them. This and other studies have concluded that self-esteem has had “no
discernible effect on academic achievement”—or on avoiding sexual promiscuity and drug
use or on preventing bullying. The self-esteem movement has not helped cultivate people’s
social skills, but has helped create a more narcissistic generation. Thus, the person with “high
self-esteem” surrounded by others may think, “Wow, they really love me!” whereas those
people are actually thinking, “What a conceited jerk!”
Baumeister strongly urges individuals and institutions to consider exactly what the
Jewish-Christian tradition has emphasized—namely, the cultivation of self-
control and character.[9] Or in the words of the apostle Paul: “But each one must examine his
own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in
regard to another” (Gal 6:4).
Just as the “self-esteem” movement offers an inadequate understanding of humanity, so
does the “worm theology” of those who insist that humans are “zeros” before God. Actually,
we are made in God’s image and thus have value. Through redemption, God bestows even
greater value on us as the “first fruits among His creatures” (Jas 1:18). So though we are
sinful and unworthy, we are not worthless. Now, sometimes we’ll hear sermons affirming
that “if Christ were to die for just you alone, he would have done so.” If that’s true, this isn’t
a statement about how great we are, but rather about how great God’s love is toward sinners.
A proper understanding of self must be anchored in biblical reality: we are God’s creation;
we have been damaged; and now we are being transformed as God’s new creation (2 Cor
3:18; 5:17).
In Paul’s own experience, he seemed to grow in humility, not by trying to boost his self-
esteem, but by looking to the grace of God in Christ. As we read his letters in chronological
order, we see Paul presenting himself (in A.D. 55) as “the least of all the apostles” (1 Cor
15:9); later (A.D. 62), he writes that he is “the least of all the saints” (Eph 3:8); later still
(A.D. 64), he writes that he is the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15). Though a sinner, Paul
displayed a remarkable confidence because of his position “in Christ.” As a result, he could
boast in his own weaknesses (Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 4:7-11; 10:8-18; 11:23-30; 12). But whether in
incredible achievement or weakness, he gave God the credit: “So then neither the one who
plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth” (1 Cor 3:7). “But
by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I
labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (1 Cor 15:10).
Brother Lawrence (1614–1691), the lay Carmelite brother who “practiced the presence of
God” in his day-to-day activities and chores, puts matters into perspective: “When I fail in
my duty, I readily acknowledge it, saying, I am used to do so: I shall never do otherwise if I
am left to myself. If I fail not, then I give God thanks, acknowledging that the strength comes
from him.”[10]
The Antidote for Pride
Pride is an exalted, inflated opinion of self—a lie; humility takes a realistic picture of
oneself, recognizing strengths and weaknesses. We have seen that God himself is the
example of humility—a realistic assessment of who he is—which is not incompatible with
greatness. We see humility with greatness in the person of Jesus Christ most clearly ( Mt
11:27-29). How do we, by God’s grace, cultivate the humble mind of Christ (Phil 2:1-5)?
First, we should be quick to confess our sins and inadequacies before others rather than
covering them up or excusing them. An excellent, insightful help in this regard is theologian
John Baillie’s daily prayer guide for morning and evening, A Diary of Private Prayer—
which my (Paul’s) family has used over the years.[11] Second, we should readily
express gratitude and praise to God and others rather than always seeking credit for
ourselves. President Reagan had a plaque on his desk in the Oval Office that read: “There
is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.”
This kind of attitude reflects a humble spirit. Third, practice the spiritual discipline of
secrecy. We may be tempted to show off our spiritual or moral lives to others, but Jesus’
command to give alms, fast and pray in secret is appropriate here to counteract pride ( Mt 6).
But doesn’t Jesus tell us to let our light shine before others and see our good works ( Mt
5:16)? There is a twofold exhortation against pride, which we have mentioned earlier: show
when tempted to hide (e.g., Mt 5:13-16) and hide when tempted to show (Mt 6:1).[12] We may
resist doing the right thing in front of others out of pride, or we may want to show off our
“spirituality” before others out of pride. As Dallas Willard wrote, we should “place our
public relations department entirely in the hands of God.”[13] Fourth, assume the servant’s
role in the lives of others. The New Testament uses the language of believers in the body of
Christ being “enslaved” to one another in love (1 Cor 9:19; Gal 5:13).[14] The focus in New
Testament teaching on humility is more on loving, self-sacrificing action than a frontal attack
on prideful attitudes (Mt 20:26-27; Mk 10:43-44; Lk 22:26). Intentionally take the role of the
slave or servant, as Jesus did (Jn 13:1-17), and humility will come as a by-product.
Fifth, suffering is God’s gift to produce a humble spirit. Paul often gloried in his weaknesses
(2 Cor 11:30; 12:5, 7), which have a way of challenging our pride and deepening our
dependence on God’s grace.
The godly English clergyman Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667) lists practices aimed at
promoting humility of spirit.
The grace of humility is exercised by these rules:
Think not thyself better for anything that happens to thee from without.
If thou callest thyself fool, be not angry if another says so of thee. He is a hypocrite who
accuses himself before others with an intent not to be believed.
Love to be concealed and little esteemed, never being troubled when thou art slighted or
undervalued.
Never be ashamed of thy birth, thy parents, or thy present employment, or for the poverty
of any of them.
Never speak anything directly tending to thy praise or glory.
When thou hast said or done anything for which thou receivest praise, take it indifferently
and return it to God for making thee an instrument of His glory.
Use no stratagems and devices to get praise.
Suffer others to be praised in thy presence and think not that the advancement of thy
brother is a lessening of thy worth.
Never compare thyself with others. . . .
Be not always ready to excuse every oversight or indiscretion or ill action, but if thou be
guilty of it, confess it plainly.
Give God thanks for every weakness, deformity, and imperfection and accept it as a
favor and grace of God and an instrument to resist pride.
Upbraid no man’s weakness to him to discomfort him. Be sure never to praise thyself or
to dispraise any man else, unless God’s glory or some holy end do hallow it.[15]
Fear, Faith, Courage and Hope
Just as lust, greed or pride can be distortions of basic God-given drives, so can self-
interest and self-preservation. As the human instinct for self-protection is strong, it can
succumb to fear or worry and override faith, courage and hope.
Fear and faith. When the strong drive for survival becomes obsessive or overpowers
other higher obligations, it becomes sinful. There is no moral law that demands preservation
of my well-being or life at all costs. On the contrary, a higher loyalty to God and even love
for others may well demand self-sacrifice rather than self-protection. In answer to the sin of
unbelieving fear are the virtues of faith and courage.
“Do not fear, for I am with you” is a repeated command and comfort to saints throughout
the Scriptures (e.g., Gen 26:24; Is 41:10; 43:5; Jer 46:27). God frequently reminds his people
that he is present, that he has heard their prayer, that he is for them, that he is acting on their
behalf. The presence of God/Jesus rightly brings comfort and courage to the fearful believer
(Mt 14:26-31). God’s presence turns fear into trust and courage (Josh 1:9; 1 Chron 28:20; 1
Cor 16:13; Phil 1:27-28; 2 Tim 1:7).
When God spoke to Abraham, he told him, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you;
Your reward shall be very great” (Gen 15:1). God promised that he would give Abram
descendants outnumbering the stars in the night sky (Gen 15:5). Abram responded by
trusting in the presence and promise of God; he believed God, and he was reckoned
righteous (Gen 15:6). Believing, having faith, or trusting are synonyms, and they
reflect relationship. Abraham entrusted himself to God. In John’s Gospel we read that though
others “believed in” Jesus, Jesus didn’t “believe in” or “entrust himself to” the crowds
because “He Himself knew what was in man” (Jn 2:23-25). While the failure of faith
is idolatry—putting our trust in God substitutes—as we continually entrust ourselves to God
(1 Pet 2:23; 4:19), we will exhibit faithfulness or trustworthiness in our relationship with
both God and our fellow human beings.
But doesn’t Scripture remind us that we should “fear God and keep His commandments”
(Eccles 12:13) and that the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7; Prov
9:10-12)? How does this square with the command “Do not fear”? The “fear of the LORD” in
Scripture is, first of all, objective. It involves a confident trust in God; “those who fear
the LORD” is a relational category, referring to those who belong to God and have faith or
hope in him (Gen 20:11; Deut 10:20; Ps 33:8; 34:7; 103:11, 13; 111:5; 147:11). This “fear” is
also affective—that is, it impacts our feelings. While the Bible uses “fear” to cover a range of
ideas—from terror to respect—“fearing God” is found in between these extremes, and a
right view of God can impel us to godly living. In light of the fact that we must all appear
before Christ’s judgment seat, Paul says, “knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2
Cor 5:11).[16]
Perhaps the important questions to ask here are, whose approval do you most seek? And
whose displeasure is uppermost in your mind? All too often, we are more motivated by the
fear of humans than the fear of God (cf. Is 8:12-13). Do we feel the burden of guilt or squirm
with shame primarily because we have had to acknowledge our wrongdoing to
others or because we have sinned against God? The believer who walks by the Spirit will
increasingly recognize that God’s approval and disapproval matter most.
Courage.According to Aristotle, courage is the “golden mean” between the extremes of
foolhardiness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). Courage has been a universally acclaimed
virtue, often connected with “manliness,” especially in the context of battle and the fear of
death. In J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, the dark character Voldemort has no courage
because he considers death an ignominious defeat, an awful human weakness. By contrast,
Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione are regularly risking their lives; they are willing to
face death for what is good and right.[17]
In Scripture, courage, like faith, is also connected to fear (Mt 14:27). Fear seems to be
most closely connected to lack of faith, and certainly its opposite—courage—is born of faith
in God. Fearlessness is not in itself a virtue since trust or confidence is misplaced and
therefore not reliable—say, bad advice from a godless psychiatrist. But those who put their
trust in God will not be “disappointed” or put to shame (Ps 22:5; Rom 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet
2:6). God will not betray the trust of the righteous; he will not allow them to be “shaken” (Ps
55:22; cf. Ps 15:5; 16:8; 62:2, 6; etc.). Confident trust in God—put another way, “fearing
the LORD” (cf. Gen 20:11)—produces courage: “And you are not to fear what they fear or be
in dread of it. It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your
fear, and He shall be your dread” (Is 8:12-13). Psalm 56:4 brings together fear, faith in God,
and courage: “In God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. What can mere man do to
me?”
Hebrews 11 commends the remarkable courage and valor of many Old Testament saints:
Abraham leaving his homeland; Moses opposing Pharaoh and refusing the passing pleasures
of sin to identify with his people: Daniel’s friends telling king Nebuchadnezzar: “Our God
whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out
of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your
gods!” (Dan 3:17-18 RSV). While some escaped the edge of the sword and women received
back their dead, others showed courage in that they faced torture, imprisonment, death and
deprivation (Heb 11:32-40): “the world was not worthy of them” (NIV).
Paul too was a model of courage, having been beaten countless times, whipped, stoned,
shipwrecked, faced constant danger and all manner of harsh circumstances (2 Cor 11:23-27).
Jesus himself was the exemplar of courage and trust in his Father as he faced temptation,
opposition, abandonment and death. Because of Christ our champion or hero (archēgos), we
too should willingly endure shame and hostility (Heb 12:1-3). Yet all believers are called to
follow in his steps—to endure to the end (Mt 10:22; 24:13; Mk 13:13), to overcome so that
we may receive “life indeed” (Rev 2:7, 10-11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12-21; 21:7). Eternal life is not the
lot of the cowardly and unbelieving (Rev 21:8).
As we noted, in the Greco-Roman world, courage was a virtue commonly connected to a
military context—to the fear of death in battle. Courage for Christ’s followers, however,
includes at least three important areas. First, boldness is needed to proclaim the gospel (Acts
4:31; 23:11; Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 16:13-14; Eph 6:19). This boldness is not self-manufactured;
Paul asks for prayer—for grace—to proclaim the mystery of the gospel boldly (Eph
6:19; Col 4:3). Second, courage is necessary in facing death (martyrdom) for the sake of the
gospel: “they did not love their life even when they faced death” (Rev 12:11).[18] Believers
throughout history have been “faithful until death,” not fearing those who can kill the body
but do nothing more (Rev 2:10, 13; Mt 10:16-28). Today, the church is severely persecuted in
many parts of the world—under Islam, Hinduism and Communism—and we must be vigilant
in prayer for our brothers and sisters. Even so, Christians in the West are seeing increased
threats to the Christian faith through a growing, hostile secularism.
Finally, courage is required for daunting tasks or challenges to which we are
called. Perhaps due to temperament or lack of experience, we find ourselves shrinking back
or withdrawing altogether from tasks to which God has called us. Or perhaps we may be
tempted to compromise our faith or convictions in the face of family or cultural pressures.
Thomas Aquinas referred to a vice he called pusillanimity—“smallness of soul.” How do we
aspire to “greatness of soul”? By diligently renewing our minds (Rom 12:2) as we expand
our picture of who God is by reading Scripture, worshiping with others and studying what
God has done through his saints in history and in his people around the world today. We must
catch a renewed vision of the love of God in Christ and take confidence in his unshakable
kingdom and eternal purposes. Whatever obstacles and hostilities the believer may face—
including death—God is “for us.” As a result, “in all these things we overwhelmingly
conquer through Him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). It is God’s love for us that should constrain
us and give us courage (2 Cor 5:14).
In J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, one Hobbit from the Shire, Frodo Baggins, must
take to Mount Doom that alluring, yet pernicious, ring that has brought trouble not only to its
wearers but to all of Middle Earth. Into the fires of Mount Doom he must throw this awful,
loathsome thing. The trek to get there is perilous and emotionally exhausting, and it requires
courage. Frodo tells his faithful Hobbit friend Samwise Gamgee, “I can’t do this, Sam.” But
Sam tries to put the matter into clearer perspective:
I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great
stories, Mr. Frodo—the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were.
And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy?
How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the
end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come.
And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with
you—that meant something—even if you were too small to understand why.[19]
And Gandalf the Wise also reminds Frodo: “We cannot choose the time we live in. We
can only choose what we do with the time we are given.”[20]
Paul reminds Timothy that God has not given us “a spirit of timidity, but of power and
love and discipline” (2 Tim 1:7). We may find ourselves intimidated and overwhelmed by
challenges before us. We may recoil and withdraw. But we must learn the lessons from
Moses, Jeremiah and other saints who were intimidated by the greatness of their tasks. Let us
remind ourselves that God is indeed for us, that Christ’s strength is made evident in
weakness, and that he can equip us to carry out daunting tasks or face difficult obstacles by
his grace.
Hope. As faith, hope and love are three “theological virtues,” we should comment on the
virtue of hope.
In Japanese, there is no native word for “hope.” Yet by the power of God’s Spirit, a
surprisingly large number of Japanese are drawn to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach,
whose music inspires them and whose words fill them with a sense of hope. One Christian
academic in Japan says, “Bach is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit.” Though just 1 percent of
Japan is Christian, nearly 10 percent of Japan’s population is quite sympathetic to the
Christian faith, most of whom had first been exposed to Bach’s music. One such
sympathizer, not a believer, is Tesuo O’Hara, who edited a collection of Bach’s works. He
was asked, “What makes Bach so successful among the Japanese?” O’Hara replied, “Bach
gives us hope when we are afraid; he gives us courage when we despair; he comforts us
when we are tired; he makes us pray when we are sad; and he makes us sing when we are full
of joy.”[21]
Hope is future directed, and it is connected to a story. The stories some people believe are
utterly mistaken—and thus a false hope (e.g., “hope in riches,” 1 Tim 6:17)—or it may be
a true hope that needs to be encouraged and better informed: “We had hoped that [Jesus] was
the one to redeem Israel” (Lk 24:21 RSV). The believer has “the hope of eternal life”
anchored in a “God, who never lies” (Tit 1:2 ESV). We have a hope that a tear- and grief-free
new creation will be established (Rom 8:22).
As with the virtues of humility and faith, true hope is anchored in reality. We can affirm
that an upbeat, optimistic spirit is more pleasant than the Eeyore-like pessimist—the
proverbial wet blanket. But hope is not mere optimism—some confidence in human progress
or that “things are going to get better.” Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that
humans were accidental arrangements of atoms and that all human achievements would be
obliterated in the distant, but certain, extinction of the sun. Thus an individual has to build
his philosophical home on the foundation of “unyielding despair.”
Despair, of course, is the opposite of hope, and at least we can commend Russell for
refusing to play philosophical, optimistic “pretend” games. However, his own outlook was
deeply mistaken and his despair unnecessary. In Christ’s death, we have a “steadfast” hope in
the midst of life’s storms—an “anchor of the soul” (Heb 6:19). Scripture connects hope to
faith: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb
11:1). If we entrust ourselves to the ultimate reality—the triune God—rather than idolatrous
substitutes, then this will produce in us hope rather than despair.
Hope can arise when we come to trust God and thus be strengthened through our earthly
trials. Suffering produces endurance, which produces proven character, which produces hope
(Rom 5:4-5). An early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–167) had once been a
disciple of Plato’s philosophy. But he was utterly struck by the hope and courage that
persecuted Christians exhibited in the face of death: “For I myself, too . . . heard the
Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are
counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and
pleasure.”[22] Thus, realizing that none of his former philosophies was fully satisfying, Justin
finally arrived at the truth of the gospel, finding “this philosophy alone to be safe and
profitable.”[23] Of course, persons can become embittered in the face of trials, being willing to
accept good but not adversity (Job 2:10).
Because the believer begins to experience eternal life—a qualitatively distinct and
supernatural life—in the present (Jn 10:10; 17:3), this gives rise to hope for the future. As the
hymn exults, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! / Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!”
Furthermore, having hope that we will see Christ and be like him inspires us to holy living:
“Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as [Jesus] is pure” (1 Jn
3:3 NKJV). That is, because of a future hope of finding ultimate fulfillment, we refuse cheap,
superficial, though tempting, imitations that promise much but fail to deliver. Many have
been seduced by the thought of just another drink, just another sweet, just another sexual
encounter. But succumbing to them is not only a failure of faith (idolatry) and of love for
God (selfishness), but also a failure of hope (despair).[24]
Conclusion
While we could add many more virtues (and vices) to our discussion, we have reviewed a
number of them. We have observed that godly character requires intentionality and Spirit-
inspired and sustained self-discipline; all of this springs from the grace of God that instructs
and motivates us to deny ungodly desires and to be zealous for good deeds ( Tit 2:11-14).
Apart from the Spirit’s role in transforming us, he uses human instruments to help us become
more virtuous, Christlike persons. Yes, Jesus used the language of discipleship—of
“following after” or “coming after” and even “imitating” Christ as our “example” ( Mt
16:24; Jn 13:14-15). But we are called to imitate earthly mentors who are Christlike role
models (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 2:14; Heb 6:12; cf. 2 Tim 2:2).
Also, we have seen that what we do in the body matters to God. Here the spiritual
disciplines are important, but we should not view them as sheer self-denial. The Spirit-led
life involves both abstaining and engaging; that is, we undertake life patterns that encourage
both self-control and endurance (1 Tim 4:7-8) as well as the intentional celebration of God’s
grace and goodness (1 Tim 6:17). As we walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16, 22), we must commit
ourselves to putting on Christ and his virtues and to taking off the corrupting vices associated
with the “old self,” Adam (Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:5-14); in so doing, we will find that
obedience, wisdom and the love of virtue will increasingly become “second nature” to us.
To partake in these Christlike virtues is to begin to experience the fruit of the new
creation—in anticipation of the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness will fully
dwell (2 Pet 3:13).
Further Reading
Austin, Michael W., and R. Douglas Geivett, eds. Being Good: Christian Virtues for
Everyday Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Baillie, John. A Diary of Private Prayer. New York: Touchstone, 1996.
DeYoung, Rebecca Konyndyk. Glittering Vices: A New Look at the Seven Deadly Sins and
Their Remedies. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009.
Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2001.
Roberts, Robert C. Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007.
Spiegel, James. How to Be Good in a World Gone Bad: Living a Life of Christian Virtue .
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.
PART VEthical Alternatives
As Western culture increasingly moves away from its Jewish-Christian heritage, we as
believers will less frequently be able to make the appeal to the Bible as a moral authority
(“But the Bible says . . .”). A couple of generations ago, the Bible—special revelation—was
commonly considered authoritative. But in our increasingly secularized society, we
frequently hear that the Scriptures are no more authoritative than the Qur’an or the Book of
Mormon. Furthermore, atheists will tell us, “We can be good without God.” They will add
that they can follow other ethical systems—secular ones—rather than believe that God is the
foundation for objective morality. In our discussions with our atheist friends, we may find
ourselves needing to begin where C. S. Lewis did in his book Mere Christianity. Our sense of
moral duty and our awareness of objective right and wrong give us a clue to the meaning of
the universe. Everyday conversations and scenarios—from not cutting in front of someone in
line, to knowing the difference between accidentally and intentionally tripping someone, to
our longing for justice in the face of evil—can help us begin that important conversation. We
will often have to begin our ethical discussion with unbelievers by looking at
God’s general revelation and the moral law within before examining biblical ethics. Because
of this, we want to look briefly at the leading ethical systems that are often utilized to bypass
God altogether.
One noted philosopher recently wrote about three dominant ethical theories in the
academy these days. They focus on morality based on consequences, on agreement and
on duty.[1] So it would be important for Christians to have at least a general awareness of
these theories—their characteristics, their assumptions, their shortcomings as well as some
genuine moral insight they may offer. There are two other ethical perspectives that have
shaped much of Western thought and thus deserve attention: moral relativism (including its
sibling, situation ethics) as well as evolutionary ethics. In chapter ten, we will offer a brief
response to relativism/situation ethics, social contract (agreement) and utilitarianism
(consequences). Then in chapter eleven, we’ll look at Kantianism (duties) in addition to
claims that naturalistic evolution is the basis for ethics. As we note, without God as the
foundation for intrinsic human dignity and moral duties, no ethical system can ultimately be
sustained.
10Relativism, the Social Contract and Utilitarianism
Moral Relativism: “That’s Right For You, but Not for Me”
In The Abolition of Man,C. S. Lewis referred to the creation of “men without chests” in
Western society—that is, humans without virtue or moral backbone: “We make men without
chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find
traitors in our midst.”[1]
Moral relativism emphasizes that an act’s rightness depends on culture or circumstances:
“When in Rome, do as the Romans,” the saying goes. A common slogan we hear today is,
“That may be right for you, but not for me.” So can we really criticize Nazi concentration
camp guards who were “just following orders”?
Whatever is wrong with moral relativism (indeed, its sins are many), it offers two correct
insights. First, people do have moral disagreements; however, many—though certainly not
all—moral disagreements are more at the level of application than underlying moral
principles. Second, moral acts do have a context. So we should take context into account
when making moral judgments: Is an act of killing done to protect loved ones during a home
break-in? Is it to protect one’s homeland from an invading army? Or is the killing the result
of a random drive-by shooting? Context matters.
Yet moral relativism is a problem for a number of reasons. First, it denies the
fundamental fact of the intrinsic dignity of human beings. This dignity is anchored in the
image of God (Gen 1:26-27). If humans have dignity and worth—a reflection of the image of
God and the basis for our talk of universal human rights—then relativism is false. This value
exists regardless of one’s culture.
Second, the problem of evil regularly reminds us all that the world is not what it should
be. We know that women ought not to be raped or children abused. The very obviousness of
evil is an argument against moral relativism. Why deny horrific evils only to embrace the
relativist’s counterintuitive belief that real evils don’t exist? The burden of proof rests on the
relativist, who denies the obvious.
Third, relativism suffers from the “reformer’s dilemma.” Though “Christians” have been
blamed for many troubles in history, the inescapable fact is that followers of Christ have been
at the forefront of eradicating many of the world’s evils: Christians helped eradicate slavery,
affirm racial and sexual equality, and ban suttee (widow burning in India). These were
important moral achievements, but the relativist cannot affirm this since this would imply a
moral standard—that moral conditions have improved from inferior conditions. This serves
to remind us that true moral values are discovered, not invented. For example, black people
already possessed dignity and worth before any civil rights legislation was passed. They
didn’t acquire value just because a law was passed.
Fourth, relativism is inconsistent: relativists oppose intolerance or “forcing your views on
others,” which they take to be absolutely wrong for all people. The “politically correct” are
quick to call traditional morality “judgmental” and “intolerant,” but these accusations assume
a normative moral standard.
A variation on moral relativism is situation ethics, a view made popular by the late Joseph
Fletcher. Gone are the rules, laws and commandments allegedly dropped from heaven,
fraught with legalism and guilt. In our pragmatic, relativistic era, we must tailor-make our
ethic as each circumstance determines—always being guided by love in this trial-and-error
process.[2] Though it resembles relativism, it does espouse the standard of “love” to follow.
For example, consider this situation: Your mother is dying a slow death by cancer. What
should you do? Don’t say, “You shall not murder.” That’s legalism. What would love do in
that situation? Perhaps it would be loving to end her life. Or, perhaps a frustrated single longs
for companionship and sexual fulfillment. You are married, but you can provide what she
“needs.” Don’t say, “The Bible says you shall not commit adultery.” That’s legalism. What
would love do? So there is no set of rules. You must decide yourself as you face each
decision: What would love do?
As we have seen, love sums up and fulfills the law (Mt 22:34-40; Rom 13:10). Yet
situation ethics is problematic for a number of reasons—including those given in response to
relativism. First, like the bumper sticker “Question authority,” situation ethics lacks any
objective authority for its position. Why prefer love rather
than reason or pleasure or survival? Anyone can assert a claim, but what is its justification?
Situation ethics turns out to be purely arbitrary. Second, “love” is contentless and pliable and
thus becomes a vague and meaningless ideal. Legal expert and theologian John Warwick
Montgomery presents us with a scenario. In making his case for situation ethics, Fletcher
could not say there is anything wrong with all manner of misinformation and twisting of the
facts—so long as this is done in the name of love:
But wait! Should he assure us, by swearing on his mother’s grave . . . that he will tell us the
truth no matter what, can we even then relax our vigilance? After all, that very assurance may
well be a situationally justified prevarication for the sake of “doing us good in love” by
convincing us of the merits of situationalism. . . . If a situation ethicist, holding to the
proposition that the end justifies the means, in love tells you that he is not lying, can you
believe him?[3]
By divorcing love from law and command, the situationist empties it of concrete
meaning. Acting in “love” may actually bring harm to us and our neighbor because we ignore
God’s just commands (1 Jn 5:2-4).
Third, biblical commands to love are not the only commands. They are the most
important, to be sure, but are not contradictory or preemptive of God’s other commands. We
are not given a choice among his commands. Ultimately, situation ethics ignores the very
nature of an intrinsically good God, whose commands should direct humans so that they may
function according to their God-given design.
The Social Contract: An Agreed-On Morality
Some suggest that morality is simply the result of people agreeing together not to harm
each other—the “why can’t we all just get along?” morality. The reason something is
“wrong” or “right” is because of consensus—what a group of people agree to. The
philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) believed that prior to this agreement, humans live
in a “state of nature.” Life in that state turns out to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short.” So humans get together and agree to live by a set of rules that profit everyone—a
social contract. They appoint a sovereign, whom Hobbes ominously named “Leviathan”—to
whom we all must thereafter submit in order to preserve the social order.
Following in his wake was John Locke (1632–1704), who influenced the shaping of the
US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Now, he did not believe that morality
was just a matter of contracts; in fact, he believed that human beings have intrinsic dignity
and worth because they are the “workmanship” of God. Other social contract theorists such
as John Rawls (1921–2002) claimed that agreement must be based on rules that any rational
person would agree to if she were to switch places with anyone else in society (“What if I
had a different skin color, religion, sex, ethnic background?”). In doing so, no one is
automatically placed at a disadvantage.
For those who believe that morality is nothing more than a social contract—the result of
people agreeing not to hurt each other or steal from each other—there are problems. This
social contract-equals-morality view can’t serve as the foundation of morality for several
reasons. First is the consent problem: What if a person refuses to live by the contract or
refuses to “sign on”? Morality wouldn’t be binding on that person since he refuses to go
along with it. And what if my ancestors entered into a social compact but I wasn’t on hand to
agree to it? Am I really bound by a contract someone else made without my consent? Is it
truly a contract for me?
Second is the arbitrariness problem: Declaring something good or agreeing that it’s good
doesn’t make it good. Nazis had an agreed-on vision for a “good society,” but it was morally
twisted. A Mafia ring may require a prospective member to murder someone before joining.
The Mafia may approve, but we still know it’s immoral apart from any social contract. It
would be utterly intolerable to equate the “legal” and the “moral” since this would justify the
actions of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung.
Then there’s the pragmatism problem: If one can escape the consequences of violating a
social contract, why consider doing so immoral? Drug lords will break social conventions
and taboos to protect their drug shipments and cash flow? If you can escape the
consequences, why is it wrong?
Fourth, there is the metaphysical problem. Metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality—
does God exist? What about the soul, life after death, free will? People will bring different
metaphysical positions to the table, and these are not morally neutral. The late John Rawls,
for example, took for granted that abortion was morally permissible, disregarding the
intrinsic value of unborn human life. Surely his view cannot be a just social contract theory
on the matter of the unborn. Furthermore, he still assumed intrinsic human dignity for all
rational persons, but this view of human worth itself is more plausibly rooted in the image of
God, not in some naturalistic view of the universe.
The social contract view reminds us that in democracies, principled persuasion aiming at
a greater consensus is important. Without patient persuasion of hearts and minds, laws thrust
on the majority opposing them will only create a backlash and ill-will. While a well-crafted
social contract (as in the U.S.) may function as a helpful guide, it cannot serve as an actual
foundation for morality or a ground for human value. Something deeper is needed.
Utilitarianism: Morality Based on Consequences
According to the utilitarian, whatever brings the “greatest happiness” to the most people
is “good.” The outcome or consequences are more important than the means of getting there.
The quantitative utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) insisted that an act is good if it
produces maximum pleasure and minimum pain, and he even offered a way to calculate
pleasurable outcomes. By contrast, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a qualitative utilitarian
who emphasized deeper pleasures to pursue. The consequence of enjoying fine literature, art
and music isn’t immediate. It takes time, patience, self-discipline and postponing
gratification. Now, there have been Christian utilitarians; they considered God as the being
who brought the greatest good to as many of his image bearers as possible.[4] However, most
contemporary utilitarians have a secular or naturalistic outlook. And when God is excluded
from the picture, difficulties quickly surface.
Consider Princeton’s Peter Singer, the world’s most notable utilitarian, who is utterly
hostile to a biblical ethical perspective. He claims it is ethically permissible to abort unborn
children with Down syndrome and to euthanize handicapped infants or the elderly suffering
from dementia. He did, however, make an exception for his own mother, Cora, whom Singer
refused to euthanize while she lived with dementia.[5] In general, however, Singer targets
those who can’t hit back, as someone aptly put it.
Where does utilitarianism lead? Consider the post-impressionistic painter Paul Gauguin
(1848–1903), who abandoned his wife and children in Europe and headed off to Tahiti. There
he pursued his “dream” by enjoying ocean breezes and sandy beaches and by painting
tropical scenes and topless women. Perhaps the utilitarian might say that because of the
sorrow he caused his family (the consequences), this act was wrong. But others might argue,
on aesthetic grounds, that Gauguin’s art has brought more benefit to humanity than harm to
his family. So his action was good.[6]
Utilitarianism does correctly emphasize that we cannot separate ethical choices or actions
from their consequences. As Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Mt
7:16 ESV). For ancient Israel, rewards or blessings (consequences) were the promised
outcome of obedience—and curses for disobedience (Deut 28). Consequences are one factor
in ethical decision making, but certainly not the only one.
While secularized utlitiarianism has shades and nuances, we can register the following
complaints against it.[7] First, if an act or rule/principle is not inherently good (or bad), then
how would one know whether the end or goal is good? It seems we must know what
is intrinsically good to capably judge whether its consequences are good. Second, how can
we measure the well-being of society without considering the well-being of individuals? We
can’t separate the two—much like we can’t separate the building up of the body of Christ
without the use of individuals’ spiritual gifts being exercised (1 Cor 12).
Third, utilitarianism wrongly assumes that individual human beings don’t have intrinsic
value and that what matters is what they contribute to society’s overall well-being. So why
not sacrifice some “for the good of the cause”? What if a group of Nobel Prize winners were
in need of organs from transplants in order to survive? One needs a heart, another a kidney,
another a set of lungs, and so forth. These scientists and economists, we could well assume,
could do much good for society. Now what if there is a street person—a drifter without
family or prospects for improving his life? Maybe his organs could be harvested to help
many more people? Given the assumptions of utilitarianism, what would be wrong with
bringing benefit and happiness to a number of lives by sacrificing one (potentially wasted)
life? Or what would be wrong with finding a scapegoat to help rally a society’s economic
recovery? For example, a Nazi government could blame Jews for Germany’s economic
decline, and this could help contribute to a new national self-confidence.
In such cases, we should dispense with the theory of utilitarianism—not our basic
moral intuitions. We know humans have dignity and worth apart from any consideration of
social consequences. Because of their essence or nature, they have dignity and worth
independent of the arbitrary “personhood criteria” laid down by various utilitarians, such as
self-awareness, rationality, intelligence, social abilities or “contribution to society.” So to
assume that humans are just a means to societal ends is unwarranted and dangerous.
Another way in which utilitarianism defies common sense is that it ignores motives and
focuses only on consequences. But surely this can’t be right. Two acts can be identical—two
people giving a gift to their grandmother, for example. And the outcome can be the same—
Grandma is very happy. But the motives may be starkly different: one grandchild gives a gift
because she loves her grandmother and the other does so only because he wants to have his
name in her will. Motives can be evil or good, regardless of the outcome, and we judge acts
to be good or evil partly because of the motives.
Here is a further problem with utilitarianism: it tends to eliminate the natural importance
of family loyalties and deep friendships in favor of a level playing field for all humanity. The
utilitarian William Godwin (1756–1836) wrote that if he had to choose between saving a
maid and the French benefactor and Archbishop of Cambrai, François Fénelon (1651–1750),
he would save the archbishop because of his value to society. When asked if the maid were
his grandmother, he said he would still save the archbishop![8] But it is utterly
counterintuitive to treat family and friends on par with everyone else. Paul says that even
unbelievers know that they ought to take care of their own family members (1 Tim 5:8). Are
we obligated to care for other children more than our own simply because they have a greater
need than our own children do? If the utilitarian’s version of “doing the right thing” requires
us to treat those who are special to us as though they were not, then we should reject this
moral outlook.
Moral relativism, social contract theory, and utilitarianism make a contribution to the
moral discussion, but by themselves, they are inadequate to account for human dignity and
objective moral values and duties. In the next chapter, we look at other ethical outlooks and
alternatives.
Further Reading
Copan, Paul. “True for You, but Not for Me”: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith, 2nd
ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009.
Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. London: Routledge, 2004.
Hare, John E. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
Preece, Gordon, ed. Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2002.
11The Duty Ethic, Evolutionary Ethics, and God As
the Foundation for Morality
Kant and the Ethic of Duty
When describing influences and trends in modern philosophy, the textbooks commonly
divide the “pre-Kantian” from the “post-Kantian.” The towering philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804) has profoundly influenced philosophical thought—and ethical theory as well.
So we should at least make some brief comments about his views.
Kant strongly emphasized “duty.” In ethics, this is called “deontology”—from the Greek
word deon, meaning “obligation” or “duty.” Kant’s view was something like the Stoic, who
emphasized gritting your teeth and doing your duty without regard to emotion or
circumstances. Kant argued that there’s nothing praiseworthy if you feel like doing the right
thing; if we do what we do because we feel like it, why is that praiseworthy?
Although Kant believed in the existence of God (in some form) to make sense of
morality, many secularists appeal to Kant as offering an ethical system that can do just fine
without appealing to God. Of course, this perspective correctly emphasizes the importance of
doing one’s duty and the dignity of human beings as moral agents. The problem, however, is
that it’s not enough to simply assert that humans have dignity and worth. Why do humans
have dignity and worth? How does such worth emerge from worthless material processes?
Here the naturalist must borrow concepts of value from theism—the assumption of human
dignity (like “the image of God”), moral responsibility/free will and even duty itself. Why
think that valuable, duty-bound, morally responsible beings should emerge from valueless,
deterministic, material processes? A secular Kantian has no answer to this.
Second, Kant emphasizes duty but fails to emphasize the value of character—the setting
from which moral choices flow. Humans can develop in their character so that certain
choices become “second nature.” That is why we correct our children—to train them so that
doing the right thing will become a habit and even a joy.
Third, like Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, who said, “There is no God. There is only
the law,” a person may do his duty and “follow the rules” but be an utterly humorless,
disagreeable individual who lives a very morally sterile life. Surely something is wrong with
this picture!
Fourth, Kant’s system takes an absolutist view in places where an ethical ordering or
hierarchy is important. As we observe in this book, Scripture recognizes ethical tensions and
offers a more richly textured ethic than Kant’s flattened, duty-centered ethic.
Finally, Kant’s system is highly depersonalized, focusing on what a “rational” agent
ought to do. Though important, this is still a far cry from the ultimate personal duty to love
God and others: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another” (Rom 13:8 RSV).
Evolution, Ethics and God
Another dominant view—sometimes connected to utilitarianism—is the view of
evolutionary ethics: our ethical beliefs have developed through evolution to help us survive
and reproduce. Some evolutionary ethicists emphasize that we think we have duties;
however, there is no real moral obligation behind those beliefs. Without a strong moral
impulse to, say, “love little children,” we would disregard this notion; the result is that we
would diminish our chances of survival.[1] Atheist Michael Ruse claims that our sense of duty
and of right and wrong is only of “biological worth.”[2] Morality is a corporate
illusion “fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”[3] We don’t have real duties,
only the illusion of them.
There are several problems with this way of thinking. For one thing, even if our
fundamental moral understanding were influenced by biological evolution, this still doesn’t
discount God as the source of morality. Why couldn’t God engineer this process to produce
in us moral beliefs or conscience that reflects God’s own moral character?
Second, God makes better sense of human dignity, which we typically take for granted.
We presume human dignity, worth and responsibility in our legal system. We don’t escape
responsibility by appealing to genetics: “Your honor, my genes made me do it!” Even the
argument against God from evil typically takes for granted intrinsic human value (“How
could a good God allow so many innocent persons to perish in a tsunami?”). Such common
sense assumptions make better sense if human beings have been made in the image of a good
God (Gen 1:26-27) than if they were the products of mindless, impersonal, valueless,
material forces. If humans have a dignity that other humans should not violate, then how did
this intrinsic value emerge if nature is all there is? It makes better sense to say
that value came from value—not that valuelessness produced value.
Third, why trust our beliefs at all if we are just the product of those material, valueless,
mindless processes? If we are simply the products of naturalistic evolution and wired for
survival, then the beliefs we hold are produced by nonrational forces beyond our control. Our
beliefs—including moral ones—may help us survive, but there’s no reason to think
they’re true. In fact, we may hold many false beliefs that help us survive. For example, we
might believe that we have duties to love little children or that all humans
have worth and rights. These would likely enhance survival and reproduction. But since
naturalistic evolution is “interested in” surviving rather than truth-seeking, holding many
false beliefs could enhance survival. Why should we trust in beliefs produced by nonrational
forces over which we have no control? How could matter actually hold any beliefs? For
example, a thermometer may register at fifty-five degrees—something produced by
nonrational meteorological forces—but this doesn’t mean the thermometer believes that the
temperature is fifty-five degrees, let alone knows it. The fact that we trust that our minds are
not systematically deceiving us makes better sense if we have been designed by a truthful,
rational God.
Finally, if humans have duties or “oughts,” where did these come from in a universe of
electrons and self-replicating genes? How do we move from “is” to “ought”? To say that
I ought to love children is ultimately like saying I ought to be hungry, which makes no sense.
There’s no difference between whether I ought to be moral and whether I ought to be hungry
since both are functions of evolutionary hardwiring. These states just are. These drives are
hardwired into us by naturalistic evolution. But C. S. Lewis noted that given such conditions,
moral impulses are no more true (or false) “than a vomit or a yawn.”[4] Thinking “I ought” is
on the same level of “I itch.”[5] Naturalism can only describe how humans actually do
function or behave, not prescribe how they ought to act.
The existence of a good God changes the picture entirely. This places human dignity and
duty into a sensible context; we have good reason to expect value in this universe if a good
God exists. We begin with value (a good God) and so we end with value in this world
(valuable human beings). There is no illogical leap from “is” to “ought” if we start with a
supremely valuable God.
God and Ethics
The psalmist who looks at the starry heavens above is humbled at the greatness of God
and the smallness of humanity: “What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of
man that You care for him?” (Ps 8:4). Even so, God made humans “a little lower than God”
(Ps 8:5)—a remarkably privileged status. The ethical theories explored in these two chapters
often take for granted this assumption of human dignity; yet a Godless universe simply does
not have the resources to account for important components required for the moral life—
human dignity and rights, free will, reason, conscience, duty.
Though he made them from the dust, the triune God has granted his image bearers the
elevated place of co-ruling creation with him as priest-kings (Gen 1:28). When we
understand that a good God is our Creator and the cosmic authority and that we are co-rulers
with God to care for creation and to shape culture so that fellow humans may flourish, many
moral issues come into proper focus. Our basic moral awareness has a robust moral
framework anchored in a good, loving and just God. Given this context, we have important
resources for making moral judgments and living wisely in this world. The fear of the Lord is
indeed the beginning of wisdom.
Up to this point, we have laid the groundwork of love, law, sin, virtue and vice; we have
reviewed the current dominant ethical theories and their shortcomings; and we have noted
the necessity of the triune God as the ultimate ground and standard of goodness, as the
source of human dignity and worth, and as the One who not only commands but also
gives grace to obey.
Now we are ready to embark on a discussion of biblical ethics. We will be using the Ten
Commandments and their wide-ranging implications as a framework for our study, beginning
with our duty to love God first.
Further Reading
Budziszewski, J. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. Dallas: Spence, 2003.
Copan, Paul. “True for You, but Not for Me”: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith, 2nd
ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009.
Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. London: Routledge, 2004.
Hare, John E. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002 (and many other
editions). See part one: “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.”
PART VIGod First
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
For most people in the Western world the horizontal has totally eclipsed the vertical.
Human relationships to each other are all-important; their relationship to God is of secondary
or no importance. Even in the church, reconciling people to people, rather than reconciling
people to God, has become top priority for many. Many Christians find it difficult to grasp
that violating the first table of the law—the first four commands related to loving God—is
more serious than violating the second table of the law—which addresses love for neighbor
—although one table has implications for the other (1 Jn 4:20). We cannot understand the
Old Testament’s prescribed punishments for working on the sabbath, for profanity or for
worshiping another deity without understanding the centrality of loving God.
Why is the command to love God with all our being the first and greatest commandment?
Why are the first four of the Ten Commandments prohibitions of sin against God? Why not
put them last, after the important ones like murder and adultery? Obviously Scripture holds
that sin against God is of greater seriousness than sin against others. After David had
committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband killed as part of his coverup,
he confessed that his sin was primarily against God: “Against You, You only, I have sinned
and done what is evil in Your sight” (Ps 51:4).
The triune God is the ultimate reality, the source and foundation of all other (created)
reality, the integrating factor of the universe. Therefore, to be rightly aligned with him is the
most important relationship in human existence. To be in right relationship with this personal
reality is life itself (Jn 17:3); to be out of alignment is destruction and death. To leave God
out of the equation of life or to diminish his role is like seeking to build a skyscraper without
mathematics or to drive a car without fuel.
God designed us to flourish in relationship to him, and his commandments simply
reinforce this reality. He treats this relationship as the most important because it is the most
important.
Yet it is not simply a matter of reality and truth. God cares about this relationship. God is
repeatedly called a jealous God. That is, it makes a difference to him whether or not we are
rightly related to him. This word for jealousy in the Old Testament is the same word used
when a husband is jealous—or zealous—for the affection of his wife. This is not a petty envy
of legitimate competition and insecurity. It is a profound caring and total unwillingness to
allow any other to replace the prior and ultimate love relationship.
The first commandment has to do with our heart attitude, our thoughts, our personal
relationship with God. But God is also interested in our deeds, what we do about how we
feel. Furthermore, he is concerned about our words, how we use his name, what we say about
him. Some compartmentalize their lives as though God is not Lord over every facet of their
existence. While claiming to be right with God, they are careless with the external
manifestations of that professed heart relationship. But that God is interested in deeds and
words as well as in thoughts is clearly revealed in the first three commandments.
12No Other Gods
Having No Other Gods
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex 20:2-3). A common theme running
throughout Scripture is that of true worship versus the profound evil and danger of idolatry:
“Keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn 5:21). A visit to India or other non-Western countries
makes this quite evident.
When I (Robertson) arrived in Japan, it grieved me deeply to see people call earnestly on
gods who are not gods. But before long, I was among those who enjoyed photographing
“quaint oriental customs.” On one occasion an earnest Japanese Christian was giving us a
guided tour of a famous shrine.
“What is your reaction to places like this?” I inquired.
“The same as all Japanese. I’m just sightseeing.”
“But,” I responded, “some of these people really worship these idols. What do you think
about that?”
“Oh, I think it’s comical, an interesting custom.”
Let us remind ourselves that God does not consider the worship of false gods merely an
interesting custom. Here is a sobering warning.
If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your
friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”
. . . you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you
spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to
put him to death. (Deut 13:6-9)
Idolatry in Israel could be compared to an act of treason—an activity that threatened the
integrity of the nation as well as its God-ordained destiny.[1]
Idolatry then and now. In the ancient world, Israel had been surrounded by a culture of
Canaanite deities, and God commanded his people not to worship them. Just as the apple
often doesn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to children imitating their parents’ negative
characteristics, so God knew that the Canaanites’ moral and spiritual apples fell quite near to
the tree of their pantheon of immoral gods and goddesses. So if one’s Canaanite deities
engaged in incest, then it’s not surprising that incest wouldn’t be treated as a serious moral
wrong. Their religion also approved of adultery (temple prostitution), bestiality, homosexual
acts (also temple sex) and child sacrifice (cf. Lev 18:10). The sexual acts of the gods and
goddesses were imitated by the Canaanites as a kind of magical act: the more sex on the
Canaanite high places, the more this would stimulate the fertility god Baal to have sex with
his consort, Anat—which meant more semen (rain) produced to water the earth.
Commenting on the do-nothing idols of the nations, Psalm 115:8 tellingly says: “Those
who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.” What does this mean?
Humans are “imaging” or “mirroring” beings, designed to reflect the likeness and glory of
their Creator; so if we worship the creaturely rather than the Creator, we’ll come to resemble
or “image” the idols of our own devising—ones in which we place all our security and find
our significance.[2] In coming to resemble finite God substitutes, we become diminished in
our humanity.
Humans have been designed for worship, but we can easily create God-substitutes.
Westerners shouldn’t deceive themselves into thinking that idolatry is primitive and perhaps
charming. Those who think this do not understand it. John Calvin called the human heart an
idol-producing factory—a fact irrespective of West and non-West!
If we won’t worship the true God, many other pseudo-gods will fill the vacuum. Idolatry
is essentially placing ultimate value on what is finite and thereby incapable of yielding true
satisfaction and contentment. It can also involve false ideas that diminish the character and
authority of God in our lives and enable us to manipulate the gods of our own choosing to do
our bidding. Idolatry is a false worldview or a philosophy of life. A worldview isn’t simply a
set of intellectual beliefs; rather, it is a heart commitment, and it can squeeze God out in the
name of science or philosophy or religion. Or perhaps the pursuit of knowledge becomes an
all-consuming intellectualism, which leads to pride and alienates others.[3] Doctrinal
rigidity and theological precision can lead to arrogance; we exhibit idolatry when we feel
superior to other Christians who think differently: “Lord, I thank you that I am not an
Arminian”—or “a Calvinist” or “a Pentecostal.” Idolatry can be an all-
encompassing attitude or mindset. In our hurt, we choose the path of anger and resentment; it
becomes our focus and idol, and we become bitter as a result. We become like the choices we
make. Hence, true worship must be in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24).
We are all in danger of daily idolatries. To make something central in life, the pivot or
ultimate reference point, is to “have a god.” To yield ultimate allegiance to or to consider
someone or something as the ultimate happiness or most desirable object, even to fear above
all else is to “have a god.” It is worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator
(Rom 1:25). And this ultimately diminishes our lives and true well-being.
Notice that the first commandment does not expressly say no other gods exist. But that
need not disturb us since the rest of Scripture clearly teaches monotheism—that there are no
other gods in reality; there is only one God. There is no god besides the Creator of the worlds
and the Lord of Israel (Deut 6:4; 32:39; Is 45:6). Other deities exist only in name—so-called
gods and lords; in fact, there is “no God but one” (1 Cor 8:4-6).
In the ancient Near East, gods operated in community—in a pantheon, a divine assembly
or with a consort. By contrast, the biblical God works alone and doesn’t share his power or
glory with another.[4] The first commandment prohibits having other gods before the true
God. It is quite legitimate to have other loves, loyalties and ambitions. But none of these
loves and loyalties can come before God, or else we have broken the ultimate relationship
and violated the supreme commandment. It is not those who love their father, mother, son or
daughter who are unworthy of the Lord Jesus, but those who love someone else more than
him (Mt 10:37). There can be no competing “ultimates” with God—whether money,
possessions, a friend, a mate, a child, a parent, love of country, a hero or leader, a philosophy
or ideology; all of these can be idols, the self being the most common.
Thus, in the act of true worship of the living God, we renounce all competitors and
substitutes. In fact, the act of genuine praise to God is polemical; to praise God is to
repudiate “alternative loyalties and false definitions of reality.”[5]
Pastor Tim Keller refers to idolatry as turning God’s good gifts into God-substitutes—
that is, making good things into ultimate things. In light of this, he advises Christians not to
simply “scold” relativists for inferior moral standards or mushy views of truth. Premarital
sex and sexual lust, say, are wrong, but these “bad things” are symptoms of something
deeper:
Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or
boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to
give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking
for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have
found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give
much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as
their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom.[6]
Furthermore, one’s trust and obedience, allegiance or love may be quite legitimate and
never demand a special, conscious evaluation until the loves or loyalties come into conflict.
Then one’s god stands revealed. At the point of choice, which love or loyalty we put before
the other will determine who or what our true god is. “What is an idol?” Keller asks. “It is
anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination
more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give.”[7]And this is how
you can tell you have an idol: “A counterfeit god is anything so central and essential to your
life that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living.”[8]
God speaks of Israel’s idolatry as a forsaking of God, “the fountain of living waters,” and
carving out for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water (Jer 2:15). This is the fate
of those who trust in God-substitutes. As Augustine reminds us, “You have made us for
yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their peace in you.”[9]
Idolatry and the occult. What about the occult? What does this have to do with idolatry?
The occult, including witchcraft, astrology, channeling and fortunetelling, has made a strong
comeback in the Western world. Satan worship is obviously the most hideous of all idolatry,
and all idolatry is, in a sense, the worship of demons (1 Cor 10:20). But what of palm
reading, crystal-ball gazing, discernment of the future through tea leaves, astrology, Ouija
boards? Deuteronomy 18:9-12 refers to “detestable things” and forbids there to be among
Israel “anyone who . . . uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets
omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up
the dead.”
God repeatedly forbade all varieties of the occult (Lev 19:26, 28, 31; 20:6) and hated this
kind of activity so much that he made death the penalty for practicing it (Lev 20:27); in fact,
he judged Israel by means of deportation and captivity for allowing it (2 Kings 17:17-18; 2
Chron 33:6). That all forms of the occult are wicked and hated by God is clear enough, but
are they a violation of the first commandment against worshiping other gods?
Isaiah seemed to pinpoint the evil in consulting fortunetellers as seeking from other
sources that which should be sought only from God (Is 8:19). In other words, disclosing the
future or supernaturally affecting the future is the prerogative of God, and when usurped by
false prophets, demons, fortunetellers, astrologers, mediums or anyone else, the person has
attempted to be godlike, mimicking the Almighty (cf. Is 45:20-21). Those who consult them
have given to humans or Satan the confidence and obedience due God alone. Consider Saul’s
experience with a medium in 1 Samuel 28 after God refused to speak to him or guide him.
Does the growing influence of occult practices indicate some measure of success in
predicting or manipulating future events? How can these activities be successful? In the case
of Saul, God himself must have intervened in the mysterious appearance of the dead prophet
—for judgment, to be sure! Often it is clearly the supernatural work of unclean spirits (Acts
16:16), and sometimes it is trickery and deceit (Acts 13:10). Occult activity was a constant
plague not only in Israel but also in the early church as these enemies of the gospel
confronted Paul wherever he went. Today also, the plague is universal and calls down the
judgment of a God who will have no other gods before him.
The first commandment reminds us of where our proper orientation must be—focused on
the ultimate reality, rejecting all God-substitutes. Doing so results in our flourishing, since
we have been intentionally designed to worship and serve our Creator and Redeemer. By
contrast, idolatry corrupts us and further defaces the divine image. The second
commandment, too, forbids distortion of the divine by attempting to capture or even
manipulate the divine in physical form as we engage in worship and devotion.
In many countries the entire culture is saturated with religious practices. Even cultural
festivals have religious overtones. When is it legitimate for Christians to participate in such
activities? It is not enough to say that Christian are free to participate if they themselves have
no religious feeling in the matter (2 Cor 6:14-18). In the evolution of a culture, religious
ceremonies and particularly festivals tend, like our Christmas, to become secular. In the light
of the first commandment, Christians may not participate simply because the activity has no
religious connotation for them. They may participate only when others see in their
participation no endorsement of the religious element. For example, though Christmas may
have strong religious meaning for the Christian, it has become so secularized that no one
would think a Jewish merchant had compromised his faith by having carols broadcast in his
store in December or wishing people “Merry Christmas.” Or, despite its darker origins,
Halloween in American culture has come to be religiously neutral, and it can be an enjoyable
time of treat-gathering and spending time with neighbors. My (Paul’s) wife and I would have
our children focus on wholesome fun and avoid costumes and themes with a dark and
macabre emphasis.
Christians living in another religious culture must be careful not to misrepresent the
gospel message or mislead others by using of images or engaging in certain potentially
compromising actions. “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn 5:21 ESV).
Not Making and Worshiping Images
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall
not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God” (Ex 20:4-
5 RSV).
Images in the ancient Near East. In the ancient Near East, images of invisible deities
served as a depiction or an embodiment of those gods; images were believed to mediate a
deity’s presence and power. Image use was an attempt to unite the transcendent and the
immanent—the otherworldly and the this-worldly.[10] Scripture never tires of contrasting the
gods who cannot see or hear or save with the Creator God of wisdom, power and saving
grace. The prophet Jeremiah gives a stinging contrast in pointing out the utter foolishness of
worshiping such idols (Jer 10:1-16), and both Isaiah (Is 44; 45:20-22; 46:1-7) and Habakkuk
(Hab 2:18-20) make the same devastating contrast. John returns to the same theme
in Revelation 9:20.
The psalmist eloquently exposes the foolishness of worshiping images:
Why should the nations say,
“Where, now, is their God?”
But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of man’s hands.
They have mouths, but they cannot speak;
They have eyes, but they cannot see;
They have ears, but they cannot hear;
They have noses, but they cannot smell;
They have hands, but they cannot feel;
They have feet, but they cannot walk;
They cannot make a sound with their throat.
Those who make them will become like them,
Everyone who trusts in them. (Ps 1 5:2-8)
We see here the enormity of betraying the living God—a constant theme throughout
Scripture. Also the inherent evil of idolatry is pointed out: humanity makes gods in its own
image, as we have seen, and they in turn make the worshiper into the image of the idol (Ps
115:8; 135:18)! Likewise, Jeremiah refers to Judah’s running after vanity and
becoming vain (Jer 2:5).
In the ancient Near East, deities were cared for by their worshipers, who attended to their
images. These gods—in the physical form of images—would be awakened, fed, washed and
put to bed at day’s end. In doing so, worshipers would guarantee the ongoing presence of the
deity in their midst.
By contrast, the Lord would manifest his glory or presence in the tabernacle and temple,
but an important difference is that these objects did not mediate the divine presence. The
original thrust of this prohibition had to do with representations or objects that attempted to
mediate the presence of deity.[11] There can be a broader application of the second
commandment, however. One problem with images used in worship is that they distort and
misrepresent the nature of the one true God. For example, the golden calf Aaron crafted was
an attempted representation of the God who “brought you up from the land of Egypt.” An
altar was built before it, and Aaron proclaimed: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD”
(Ex 32:4-5). No doubt, the idolatrous Israelites craved some tangible mediation of the
presence of the Lord, but beyond this, such physical representations are limited in what they
can express about God, and this distorts one’s understanding of the divine nature. The bronze
serpent that Moses used would later become an idol in the land (2 Kings 18:4). This object
became more than a memorial of God’s deliverance in the wilderness (Num 21:9), but
something to mediate the presence of the supernatural or transcendent realm.
Art, image worship or aids to devotion?The prohibition of graven images does not
prohibit works of art, as some hold. We know this because in the same Sinaitic
commandments there are instructions for “fashioning” the cherubim and the pomegranates
for the robe of the high priest. Later Moses was to erect the bronze serpent. The command is
against creating any object for religious veneration rather than, say, creating objects for
religious instruction or religious art.
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have held that images of God, Jesus
or the saints are quite legitimate as aids to worship, so long as they are not used as objects of
worship. But aids to worship can easily become objects of worship and distort and
misrepresent the one true God. Catholics have distinguished
between veneration and worship, the latter being offered only to God. However, the danger is
that these distinctions can be dissolved in actual practice. Among Protestants it is common to
have paintings or other visible depictions of Christ—some of us remember the flannel graph
Bible stories of yesteryear—or even representations of God the Father, but there is no use of
these objects for worship; so they can hardly be considered in violation of the second
commandment, particularly if that commandment in its original context had to do with
images mediating the power and presence of the divine. We ourselves personally prefer to be
without the artist’s imagination of our Lord’s appearance, but we find no prohibition of this
in Scripture.
In various cultures or settings, images of Jesus may cause offense to other believers in
South America or Southeast Asia or even unbelievers, say, in a Muslim culture. And graven
images of another kind can be a cause of spiritual harm to others. As a new missionary I
(Robertson) asked an older Japanese pastor if there was a problem with displaying a
photograph of my deceased father. He gently advised against it. In a land where such
photographs are objects of veneration in ancestor worship, a perfectly innocent custom
becomes a stumbling block. It is far better to err on the side of caution than to risk promoting
violation of the second commandment.
If a person does not actually worship an image but simply uses it as an aid to devotion,
why should it be prohibited? History teaches that such “aids” can actually become objects of
worship. This was true when the brazen serpent was destroyed because it had become an
object of worship (2 Kings 18:4). This is also true in Roman Catholic countries where
official church theology insists that the image is not to be worshiped, but the common people
do in fact pray to and venerate the image itself. Even if a person might use the image solely
as an aid to prayer to the invisible God, she may well lead others into actual worship of it. In
medieval Catholicism, the relics of the saints were viewed by many as having magical
qualities and detracted from worshiping the one true God. In any event, the making of graven
images of this kind is prohibited in the second commandment.
What of those who go through the form of worshiping before an idol or image but in their
own hearts pray to the true God? In times of persecution is it better to go through the
formality of idol worship to preserve one’s life in order to live and serve the true God? If
God does not accept us when our worship is mere form and not in truth, why should he
condemn us if we go through the formality of worshiping some other god but do not do so in
truth?
The Bible is very clear on this point. We are not only forbidden to make such objects of
worship, we are commanded not to bow down to them. It is unacceptable to God to worship
him with the aid of images, which are limiting in what they can depict about God or Christ
and thus distorting true worship. Some missionaries have kept fetishes and idols as curios or
instructional material. But God says that the idol must be destroyed (Deut 7:5-11, 25-26).
Why does God take this hard line on idols?
In the first place, to go through a form that is not true is to lie. But it is not an ordinary
lie. It is a particularly pernicious lie because it is the lie of betrayal. “But whoever denies me
before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33 ESV). Peter may
have denied the Lord with very good motives. He may have been attempting to save himself
so that he could rescue his master from impending execution. Whatever his motivation, it
was the act of unfaithfulness that broke his heart.
A couple in Japan was at the point of divorce when God rescued them and their home by
his grace through Christ Jesus. Unknown to me (Robertson) or to the young wife, the
husband did not destroy the photographs of the other woman, but put them in the bottom of a
bureau drawer. Many months later, his wife discovered these photographs and in anger cut
them to pieces. This made her husband so angry that the home was on the verge of breaking
again. He said that the relationship with the other woman had been broken off, that there was
no continuing contact of any kind, and that the pictures meant nothing. It is very hard for an
outsider, let alone a wife, to believe that the pictures meant nothing when the husband took
scissors and shredded his wife’s clothes in retaliation. Somehow there is unfaithfulness even
though it is merely an outward form. God is a jealous God and will not countenance any
competition for first place in our lives or the appearance of it. Not only is making gods
forbidden; the act of “bowing down to them” is strictly prohibited as well.
Further Reading
Beale, G. K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
Keller, Timothy. Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the
Only Hope That Matters. New York: Penguin, 2009.
Lewis, C. S. “The Weight of Glory,” in The Weight of Glory. San Francisco: HarperOne,
2009.
Moser, Paul K. “Idolaters Anonymous.” www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/index.shtml.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
13Honoring God in Speech and Rest
Not Taking God’s Name in Vain
“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave
him unpunished who takes His name in vain” (Ex 20:7).
In an ancient Near Eastern setting, the third commandment would have been understood
as a prohibition against misusing God’s name in an attempt to manipulate or harness his
power for one’s own selfish purposes. The “name” of a given pagan deity was frequently
invoked as a technique—a magical incantation—to master supernatural forces to pursue
earthly or material success. This third command prohibits the use of the name of Yahweh
(“the LORD”) in magic.[1]
In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus reminds us of the sacredness of God’s name: “hallowed be
Your name” (Mt 6:9). In her Magnificat, Mary affirms this: “holy is His name” (Lk 1:49).
Jesus prays to his Father to “glorify Your name” (Jn 12:28). The seven sons of Sceva misused
the name of Jesus in this way—a “magical” name to exert power over demonic forces ( Acts
19:14). To those who merely used Jesus’ name to cast out demons, perform miracles, or
prophesy, he tells them, “I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”
(Mt 7:23).
A further application involves using God’s name to make and then break a contract. It is
wrong to invoke the name of God to validate the truthfulness of one’s statement when it is
actually untrue. It is wrong to call God as witness to a contract, to make a vow before him,
and then to break contract or vow. This is the way the third commandment is referenced
in Scripture (Lev 19:12; Mt 5:33-34, 37; 23:16-22; 26:63). And James 5:12 prohibits the
using of an oath in any event.
Christians, by the very name they bear, have validation enough for every statement they
make. Their word should be trustworthy. Their yes or no is sufficient without qualification.
In the home, parents’ yes to their children should be sufficient without having to tack on an
“I promise” to ensure that they really mean what they say. A simple “I will” should suffice.
And character matters more than technique. For Christians to break contract or to tell a lie is
to break the third commandment, for it is to use profanely the name of God which they bear,
whether or not they actually invoke the name. Though breaking a contract given in God’s
name is the primary focus of the third commandment, there are other implications.
Did Jesus and James forbid all oath taking? Some have held that it is wrong to take an
oath in court or to swear allegiance to one’s nation. The first problem with this view is that
the Israelites were commanded to swear by the name of their God (Deut 6:13; 10:20), and it
was considered praiseworthy (Ps 63:11). In line with this, Paul often said, “For God is my
witness” and at least once took an oath (Rom 1:9; 1 Thess 2:5, 10). God himself takes oaths
and swears by his own name (e.g., Heb 6:13-20). Christ spoke under oath in court (Mt
26:63). How is this apparent conflict to be resolved? Most branches of the church have held
that Christ and James are reinforcing the teaching originally intended to prohibit oath
breaking, not oath taking. James is expounding on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7),
and Jesus and thus James are opposing verbal casuistry—an ancient version of crossing one’s
fingers when taking an oath. Jesus opposed the common abuse of oaths in his day—that
somehow one was bound by swearing by the gold of the temple or by one’s offering, but not
if one swore by the temple itself or the altar in the temple ( Mt 23:16-22). Jesus was outraged
by this hypocrisy, insisting that one should be a person of one’s word.
Of course the scope of the prohibition was broader than just the breaking of a formal
oath. In the first place, a covenant people (Ex 19:5-6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9) are name-bearers of God,
and, by virtue of that, every word they speak must be trustworthy, every act in conformity
with the covenant or oath of allegiance they have sworn to God. The employee who does not
give a full measure of faithful work and the employer who does not pay a fair wage are both
profaning the name of God, for stealing profanes his name (Prov 30:8-9). In fact, every sin is
the occasion for God’s name to be blasphemed among the unbelievers (Rom 2:24-25). Who
has broken the solemn vow of marriage through adultery or unlawful divorce? The Lord will
not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Who has broken the solemn pledge given
at baptism? The Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Sometimes it seems impossible to live up to the promises made, for every promise, even
every yes and no of a Christian, is given in God’s presence. He is witness. Difficult to be
sure, but God approves of the person who sticks to his word no matter how costly (Ps 15:4).
God favors the bankrupt businessman who spends his life attempting to repay his creditors.
Unshakable integrity is the key idea in the third commandment and in the reinforcement
given by Christ and James.
In the second place, the custom of invoking God’s name to induce confidence in what one
says (“I swear to God”) had become so commonplace as to empty it of meaning. They were
literally “taking God’s name in vain.” Today people use God’s name without meaning it—
mindlessly profaning God’s holy name—whether just using the common abbreviation
“OMG” or simply a habit of speaking that reveals an impoverished vocabulary. Even
preachers use God’s name flippantly, in a casual way, or in quoting a profane person. Against
this both Jesus Christ and his brother James spoke stern words of warning.
Is this the only prohibition of the third commandment? Literally, to “take in vain” means
to use in an empty way. Therefore, to use God’s name without meaning it is to use it
profanely. In a sense, to pray or to sing without meaning it is to use God’s name in vain. The
great temptation of those in full-time Christian work is to do religious activity professionally,
simply to go through the routine of “performing” a church service. And much contemporary
“praise band” worship in our churches looks more like a rock concert of performers with a
weak congregational accompaniment—rather than a community of worshipers robustly
joining together in one voice to adore God. These are yet other ways to profane the name of
God.
Certainly any sort of irreverence violates the third commandment. To joke about sacred
things or to joke with sacred things in such a way as to debase them is to act profanely. To
use sacred things or words emptied of sacred meaning is wrong. For this reason, jokes about
the Bible or sacred Bible truths are not fitting for the Christian who holds God’s name and
God’s things in high reverence.
Some people seem to use God’s name in vain by repeating it often in prayer without
thought. Others invoke God’s name on almost every decision or plan they make. “God said”
or “God told me to . . .” God’s name is invoked to validate almost every activity. This may be
genuine so far as a person’s heart condition is concerned, but there is the danger that this may
become profane, invoking God’s name when it is not altogether certain that God himself
stands behind that particular choice or activity.
What of words that are often called profanity, such as hell or damn, or scatological or
sexual terms? Technically speaking, these are not a violation of the third commandment. The
third commandment prohibits taking God’s name in vain. This does not mean that a Christian
is free to use such language, of course. There are other biblical injunctions concerning what
we should think about, or not letting any unwholesome word proceed from our mouths (Eph
4:29), and certainly much of this language is not fit for Christian use.
What of Christian novelists or dramatists putting profanity in the speech of their
characters? This is becoming increasingly common. This, however, is one of the great—and
perhaps fatal—limitations on Christian writers. We see no more justification for them to use
profanity for their characters than for ministers to use similar language in their pulpit
illustrations. How can Christian novelists say, as many do, “That’s just
my character speaking”? Inasmuch as they have full control over their character and the
language and thought that the character brings into my mind, we don’t see how they are free
of responsibility. Unlike sins such as murder, which a person can describe without
committing, to use words profanely is to commit the sin—God’s name is no less used in vain
by putting it in quotes.
What of minced oaths like “gosh” or “gee”? Do these violate the third
commandment? Sensitive Christians need to be especially careful that they do not judge
others too severely in these matters. Some of these oaths have no religious association in
their culture—much like how “goodbye” is no longer understood to mean “God be with
you.” In all conversation, though, believers ought to honor and hallow the most sacred name
of God.
What of humorous language? Christ says that we must give account for every idle word
that we speak (Mt 12:36). Ephesians 5:4 seems to prohibit levity of any kind, but this has
more to do with what we might call dirty jokes or impure speech (cf. Eph 4:29). And we
should be on guard against the increased coarsening of our culture and vulgarizing of speech.
Now, it can hardly be sinful to speak with a humorous touch since Christ himself did so
on more than one occasion. When he nicknamed James and John the “Sons of Thunder,” it
can hardly be understood as a dead-serious speech. A log in one’s eye and a camel crawling
through a needle’s eye are not solemn illustrations. The name Isaac (“he laughs”) is a
reminder of divinely created ironies to humble—and even humor—humans trying to figure
out God’s ways! The Lord’s delivering his people from captivity fills their mouths with
laughter (Ps 126:2). A cheerful heart—and no doubt this includes humor—is good medicine
and brightens the face (Prov 15:13; 17:22). Those who weep for their sin will be comforted,
even laugh (Mt 5:4; Lk 6:21). Actually, humor can be anything but idle. It can be very
productive—often to break the tension or to build relational bridges.
Sometimes a light, humorous touch can counteract a heavy-handed approach in order to
get a point across—or humor can be an indirect way to address a problem whereas a direct
confrontation could create further tensions. Standards for humor should be maintained. For
example, humor should not hurt another person. While humor is not in itself sinful, it can
turn to idle, unproductive foolishness. Does humor spring from love in a spirit of reverence
for God?
For the people of God, words have a sacramental character. Jesus is the living Word of
God. The Scriptures are the written Word of God. Our mandate is to speak and live out the
Word reverently and consistently—as living letters for the world to read (2 Cor 3:2; cf. Jn
13:35). The third commandment charges believers—avowed name-bearers of God (Jas 2:7)
—never to profane the name in word or behavior.
Observing the Holy Rest Day
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . The LORD blessed the sabbath day and
hallowed it” (Ex 20:8, 11 RSV).
There is some disagreement between scholars about the enduring relevance of the sabbath
commandment for the believer. Is the seventh day (Saturday) to be the Christian’s day of rest,
as Seventh Day Adventists hold? Or is the first day of the week—or the Lord’s Day (the day
of Christ’s resurrection)—the Christian’s sabbath? Or has the sabbath been fulfilled in the
person and work of Christ so that it is no longer obligatory and no day is more special or set
apart than the rest—even if the rhythm of rest and corporate worship is still vital for our
overall well-being? If the sabbath or Lord’s Day is not binding on Christians, does this mean
that only nine of the ten commands have enduring relevance? Does the New Testament itself
set limits regarding the rest day? Is the fourth commandment a matter of “Christian liberty”
in the new covenant era? Indeed, we authors hold differing views on this matter. As we
discuss this below, we will highlight similarities and differences.
The rest day in the Old Testament.The Hebrew word Sabbath (šabbāt) means “rest” or
“rest day.” When did a special rest day begin? For whom was it intended? What was its
purpose?[2]
“And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on
the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day
and sanctified it; because in it He rested from all His work which He had created and made”
(Gen 2:2-3).
The command to rest on the sabbath is unique in ancient Near Eastern literature. As John
Walton notes: “It is now widely acknowledged that no such observance has been found”
outside of Israel’s legislation.[3] In contrast to the non-Israelite literature, the Old Testament
depicts humans working to sustain themselves—rather than to help meet God’s needs or to
do God’s work while he relaxes. Humans rest in light of the fact that God has exerted control
and has established order in the cosmos.[4] Although God brings about the material creation
(Gen 1:1; Jn 1:1-3), God is primarily putting in order a cosmic temple—a divine-human
meeting place; on the first three days of “dividing” he forms or puts into place “realms” or
“spheres,” and in the next three days he “fills” or populates those realms. He puts all of this
in order so that he and his image bearers can work together in tending to it and can enjoy
fellowship with each other in the garden sanctuary (Gen 3:8).
God then ceases from the work of his initial creation. But this rest is not because of some
desire or need in himself. God’s “rest” is symbolic, serving as a model for human beings.
Surely God didn’t literally need to feel “refreshed” (Ex 31:17)! God considered the human
need for rest in the midst of life’s rhythms, so he set a pattern himself at creation. God set
aside a day for Old Testament Israel primarily to allow his people to be refreshed after six
days of labor, typically from sunup to sundown in the ancient world; this was a gift of love
and a sign of divine care. God graciously purposes to have us as partners in his creative and
redemptive work.
The original purpose of the sabbath was human rest. Later, the Scriptures make a
connection to proper worship and service of others; God desired that Israel’s sabbath include
assisting the hungry and the afflicted (Is 58:9, 13-14). Sabbath worship was not to be
separated from relationship with God and serving his people.
Beyond this, we view the sabbath question differently.
Biblical evidence: McQuilkin’s perspective. The rest day began at the creation. The
purpose stated is clear: it is for rest, and it is in a special sense holy or set apart, rooted in the
example of God at the very beginning, long before any covenant of redemption was made
with a chosen people.
When God commanded sabbath rest a second time, the rest day was designated as a sign
for Israel of God’s great redemption from Egypt (Deut 5:15). But it did not originate then any
more than animal sacrifice, which was also designated as a sign of God’s redemption from
Egypt, originated at the time of the Passover. Sacrifices were offered up to God before the
time of Abraham—just as circumcision was likely in existence before Abraham’s day.
Likewise, the rest day was to be a covenant sign between God and Israel (Ex 31:13), but this
does not mean that the rest day was instituted then.
When God gave the Ten Commandments, he clearly enunciated the origin of this
particular commandment. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . For in six days
the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day;
therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it” (Ex 20:8, 11 RSV). Some have
said that there is significance in the fact that the setting apart of the rest day in Genesis 2 is
never mentioned again until Exodus 16:26-30—in connection with the (still pre-Sinai) giving
of the manna. However, there can be no more significance in this omission than there is in
the omission of the other nine commandments during the same period of time. The fourth
commandment was enunciated at the very beginning.
Christ’s view of the rest day. Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets
(Mt 5:17) said both yes and no to sabbath regulations. Christ said yes to the rest day—and a
resounding no to the rabbinical additions. Jesus certainly sought to portray the full
significance of the sabbath command. In his discussions of the sabbath, he contended with
the scribes continuously over their interpretation of the law, with the complex hedge they
built about the law to protect it. In fact, Jesus seemed to deliberately instigate controversy by
repeatedly healing on the sabbath.
In his practice, Jesus observed the sabbath. The rest day was made for humans; so the
Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath (Mk 2:28). Contrary to what some scholars have
maintained, “Son of Man” is not a reference to humans (as implied by this name given to
Ezekiel, which denoted human frailty). The parallel to this passage in Matthew 12 indicates
that this “Son of Man” and “lord of the sabbath” is also “greater than the temple.” This
is Daniel 7’s authoritative “Son of Man,” who is coregent with the Ancient of Days—the
same title that prompted the high priest to tear his robes at Jesus’ trial (Mk 14:62-64).
What does it mean for Christ to be “lord of the sabbath”? First, we know that Christ did
not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17-19). Jesus’ “fulfilling the law” included
his obeying the law—though opposing mere rabbinical tradition. That said, sabbath
synagogue (or even temple) attendance was not a requirement of the law, but Jesus set the
sabbath pattern for this.
The rest day as a special day is somewhat similar to nighttime. Humans need several
hours of rest every night. Most normal, healthy people are delighted that they can go to bed
and rest at night. They don’t feel it is something laid on them that is very hard to do. Even so,
some things must be done at night, and in an emergency a person may skip the rest time. In a
similar way, Christ allowed for exceptions: grinding grain informally and thus preparing
necessary food to eat (Mk 2:23-27); watering cattle (Lk 13:15); commanding a man to pick
up his bed and take it home (Jn 5:8). Opposed to legalism, Christ allowed not merely for
“works of necessity” on the sabbath. Christ emphasized what brought genuine benefit to
humans—“works of mercy” (Mt 12:11; Lk 14:5)—as opposed to the stifling, dry legalism
that hurt people. No wonder Christ was angry with religious leaders who thought he should
not heal on the sabbath (Mk 3:1-5). In addition, leaders of God’s people will be involved on
the sabbath in service to God, which enabled others to engage in their rest and worship of
God (Mt 12:5; Jn 7:22-23).
Second, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament as Messiah and is the one who faithfully lived
out Israel’s story in obedience to God. He brings to fruition the Old Testament’s events,
ceremonies, personages (like Moses, David, Solomon and Jonah) and holy places (e.g., Jn
4:21-24). As for the sabbath, Jesus’ life and teaching draw out the full significance of the
sabbath. And Jesus’ example supports the view that obedience to the fourth commandment is
still obligatory. The difference is that Jesus merely strips the command of all its scribal
additions and human-made traditions.
Paul’s view of the rest day. Paul taught his Gentile churches that the Hebrew Scriptures
are God’s Word and that the law is summed up in the command, “Love your neighbor as
yourself” (Gal 5:14). The only Bible these Christians had was the Old Testament, though the
sayings of Christ and the early biographies of Christ were no doubt beginning to circulate
(e.g., Lk 1:1-2; Acts 20:35). The writings of Paul are identified by Peter as Scripture and thus
hold equal authority with the rest (2 Pet 3:16). In fact, we believe that God’s revelation
progressed in the person, work and the teaching of Jesus Christ and that it progressed even
further in the interpretation of the person, work and teaching of Jesus found in the apostolic
letters. Nevertheless, if the authority of Scripture is to remain intact, every effort must be
made to harmonize the teachings of Scripture. Later revelation is authoritative in interpreting
earlier revelation. However, unless later revelation (in Jesus Christ or in the apostles) clearly
sets aside or reinterprets earlier revelation, the earlier revelation must stand.
Paul considered Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and so he interpreted it
christocentrically. The authoritative Christ was the touchstone for whether a Mosaic
command had enduring relevance or not. Yet Paul tells his Gentile audience at Colossae:
“Let no one pass judgment on you . . . with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath”
(Col 2:16 RSV). To the Romans he writes, “One man esteems one day as better than another,
while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind”
(Rom 14:5 RSV). The question then is this: Is Paul, in Romans and Colossians, deliberately
setting aside the sabbath commands of Genesis 2 and Exodus 20? Paul’s intention is not to
diminish the authority of any of the Ten Commandments.
Taking the Lord’s Day as the Christian sabbath, Paul Jewett argues that if no days are
different, then why does Paul highlight the first day of the week for breaking bread ( Acts
20:7) and for setting aside monies toward an offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem ( 1 Cor
16:2-3). And what about John’s reference to “the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10)? Jewett adds:
To what, then, did [Paul] have reference when he spoke of some who esteem one day above
another and some who esteem every day alike? We cannot be absolutely sure. Since the
context has to do with dietary restrictions, some have thought he is speaking of setting aside
certain days for fasting. Recalling that the church of Rome had a large Jewish contingent, it
is at least equally plausible that he had in mind the Jewish Sabbaths and other holy days,
which the Jewish Christians were at liberty to esteem and the Gentile Christians to ignore,
according to each man’s background and personal preference. It apparently never occurred to
him that anyone would construe his strictures against the legalistic observance of feast days,
new moons, and Sabbaths (Col. 2:16) or his plea for liberty in the estimation of days (Rom.
14:5) as meaning he was opposed to the observance of a weekly division of time, or
indifferent to the designation of the first day of the week as the day of religious worship.[5]
The Letter to the Hebrews on the rest day. The teaching of Hebrews (Heb 3:7–4:11) was
taken by the Reformers as indicating that Christ fulfilled the sabbath law so that we have all
entered into our rest from sin, and thus all days are to be treated in an equal way. Other
scholars argue that an even stronger teaching in the passage is clearly that a rest remains for
the people of God. We have the already of Christ’s bringing us rest in the present, but
Hebrews emphasizes the not yet final rest as well. The new heavens and new earth (cf. Rev
21) is the focal point of the passage.
It might also be urged that simply because all of one’s property belongs to God, there is
no longer any need to give a portion for his offering. Again, to argue that to be saved is to
rest in Christ and that therefore the older commandment of physical rest is abrogated would
be like arguing that since our eternal and true marriage relationship is with Christ beginning
now and confirmed in greater fulfillment at the marriage supper of the Lamb, therefore the
physical and contemporary laws of marriage are no longer in effect.
Summary of the biblical evidence. Though there are arguments on both sides of the
sabbath continuity-discontinuity discussion, the sabbath rest day was clearly established for
humanity by God at creation, and it was to be an example for all humans to follow. National
Israel was expected to follow God’s example and command before and after Sinai. In the
New Testament, Jesus attended synagogue on the sabbath. After Jesus’ resurrection on the
first day of the week, the early church, including Paul’s example in Acts, would gather on
“the Lord’s Day”; this appears to reinforce the binding nature of a set-aside day, albeit not
the seventh day, Saturday (the sabbath). Any opposition Paul had to setting days aside
pertains to Jewish legalism rather than the spirit of the fourth commandment. To do
otherwise would be to undermine the authority of the Decalogue and the example of Jesus.
Furthermore, church history strongly supports such a view. Before the Edict of
Constantine that restored property and religious rights to Christians (A.D. 313), believers by
necessity worked on the Lord’s Day. However, Constantine set aside the first day of the week
as a day of rest from work. Why should Constantine choose Sunday as a rest day if there was
no precedent among the Christians with whom he sought to identify? After Constantine’s
edict, the church fathers began to appeal to the law of the sabbath as applying to the first day
of the week. This interpretation became common throughout Christendom until the time of
the Reformers. The Reformers rejected this interpretation, holding that the sabbath law was
no longer binding for the Christian. Nevertheless, each Reformer in his own way defended
the observance of the day in practice. This is reinforced by the affirmation of worship and
rest in various Protestant catechisms and confessions—Westminster, Augsburg, Heidelberg,
Belgic, Scots—which all highlight the normative role of all the Ten Commandments.
Biblical evidence: Copan’s perspective. While Western Christians may emphasize
the first part of the sabbath command to “remember the Sabbath,” yet another command
follows: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” (Ex 20:9). We are far removed from
ancient Israel’s six twelve-hour workdays, but it appears—at least on the face of it—that we
are required to work six rather than five days. How do we square this with the common
forty-hour (five-day) workweek to which Westerners are accustomed? The question is worth
pondering as it relates to the purpose of the sabbath command.
Strong arguments can be made for the enduring nature of the sabbath because it is
anchored in creation—well before the Mosaic law was given. The sabbath command is to be
“a perpetual covenant” and “a sign . . . forever” (Ex 20:8-11; 31:12-17). On the other hand,
one could argue that other “eternal” Old Testament ordinances would be fulfilled in Christ:
Passover (Ex 12:24: “forever”), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12:14, 17: “an eternal
ordinance”); burning oil in the temple (Ex 27:21; Lev 24:3: “a perpetual statute”); the
Aaronic priesthood (Ex 29:9: “a perpetual statute); food to be given to Aaron and his sons
(Ex 29:27-28: “forever”); grain offering (Lev 6:22: “a permanent ordinance”); the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:31: “a permanent statute”); one statute for Israelite and alien (Num
15:15: “a perpetual statute”); tassels on garments (Num 15:38: “throughout their
generations”). Of course, the fact that these ordinances are fulfilled in Christ does not mean
that the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. However, these other ordinances could serve as a
picture of how the sabbath could also find fulfillment in Christ.
Christ’s view of the rest day. Biblical scholars observe that Jesus himself, in following his
Father’s example of working, works on the sabbath—his favorite day to heal the sick! “My
Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (Jn 5:17). Rather than easily waiting
an additional day to heal, he intentionally heals (“works”) on the sabbath; he makes no
attempt to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing. In fact, in his healing of the blind man
in John 9, Jesus technically does “work” by making a mud pack to put on this man’s eyes—
an additional bit of “work” he could have avoided on the sabbath (Jn 9:6). So, certain
scholars argue, if Jesus is “lord of the sabbath,” perhaps he is signaling a new way of
viewing the sabbath—that the ultimate rest is to be found in coming to Christ and in our
taking his yoke upon us (Mt 11:28-29).
Paul’s view of the rest day. Those claiming that the sabbath rest has been fulfilled in
Christ will readily agree that Paul well knew that the weekly sabbath goes back to creation.
Yet he also knew that the fourth command specifically designates the sabbath day: it is
the seventh day—not merely one day in seven (e.g., Sunday/the Lord’s Day).
Yet in Colossians 2:16-17, Paul makes the strong statement that the
weekly sabbath, which is included in a list of other Jewish festivals (held monthly and
annually), was itself a “shadow of what is to come.” Given this passage, various scholars
argue, it would seem hard to believe that Paul is upholding sabbath-keeping here. The same
downplaying of any days is found in Galatians 4:10: “You observe days and months and
seasons and years.” Scholars taking the “Christ fulfills the sabbath view” see that Paul, in
light of his mission to the Gentiles, refuses to insist on sabbath-keeping and that he does not
mandate setting one day apart as more theologically significant than another.
In Romans 14, Paul is addressing a Gentile church with a Jewish minority. Here Paul is
referring to two matters: eating (or abstaining) from certain foods and setting days apart (or
treating them all alike). Scholars generally agree that Jewish and Gentile scruples are at issue
here. The diets mentioned—as well as the days—are not strictly Jewish, but include,
for example, Greco-Roman holy days. It seems Paul is treating both diet and days as
nonmoral matters—issues concerning liberty of conscience.[6]
If so, does this mean that the fourth commandment is “abolished” or “abrogated”? No,
scholars such as D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo and Craig Blomberg would argue.[7] Jesus
himself said he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not to abolish them. Rather, Christ
takes into himself the Old Testament’s laws and reinterprets them for the new community of
disciples in light of his life, death and resurrection—including Gentiles being incorporated
into the people of God. But Christ’s fulfilling does not mean that Old Testament laws
necessarily have the same normative authority for Christians that they did for Old Testament
Israel.
The Letter to the Hebrews on the rest day. The “rest” in Hebrews is not a literal sabbath
observance; the rest in Hebrews has to do with “a lifetime of perseverance in trusting in
Christ, which will then eventuate in an eternity of rest from our labors.”[8] This is much
like Revelation 14:13—the dead who die in the Lord and who “rest from their labor”—and
the rest Jesus himself promises to the weary and burdened who put their trust in him (Mt
11:28-30). This is a more robust perspective on rest—namely, resting in Christ and remaining
devoted to him—than resting one day in seven. So Hebrews does not shed light clearly on
the Lord’s Day question.
Summary of the biblical evidence. Christ’s fulfillment of the sabbath is suggested by the
various ways he emphasized the non-binding nature of the sabbath. He did so by stressing his
own (and his Father’s) working on this day (Jn 5); he highlights his lordship over it, which,
like David’s taking the showbread from the priest at Nob (Mt 12; cf. 1 Sam. 21), allows for
exceptions. And are Christians not allowed to do the equivalent of gathering firewood on the
sabbath—say, pumping gas, perhaps—as in Num 15:32-36? In Romans, Galatians and
especially Colossians, Paul extends this point by emphasizing that no particular day should
be imposed on Gentile believers—especially since sabbath-keeping was a point of national
pride for Israel. Furthermore, while nine of the commandments are repeated in the New
Testament in various lists (e.g., Mt 19:17; 1 Tim 1:8-10), the fourth commandment is not
included.
Moreover, these scholars would claim that New Testament evidence of a theological
transfer from a seventh day (sabbath) to the Lord’s Day is not so clear. Further, that it became
the early church’s official day of worship is not so evident. These scholars would say that the
Old Testament sabbath is bound up with rest, but not the “Lord’s Day,” which in some
instances is connected to corporate meeting, which includes teaching and fellowship. No
doubt, the earliest Gentile Christians in the Roman Empire would have had to work on
Sundays—hence meeting on Sunday evening in Troas (Acts 20:7-11). They would have had
to work every day of the week, and they would only get rest on whatever Roman holidays
their pagan peers did.
Application for today: McQuilkin’s perspective. The rest day is commanded in the
Scriptures—not merely that it is a beneficial thing and one of God’s good gifts for the
welfare of humankind. Some scholars argue that it is a law rather than a recommendation
because a recommendation would be no blessing at all. It is the binding aspect of the rest day
that releases one for rest and worship. If the rest day is merely recommended, we are not free
to rest from the pressures of life and turn without hindrance to joyful fellowship with God
and his people. We must still face the pressures and frustrations of mundane obligations. But
a required rest day sets us free for worship, community, reflection and refreshment. Yet one
must be careful about being a “sabbatarian” who promotes the kind of legalism that Jesus
himself would have opposed.
Christians commonly applaud an athlete like Eric Liddell, who out of spiritual conviction,
refused to participate in a race in the 1924 Olympics because it was scheduled on the
sabbath. (The film Chariots of Fire powerfully portrays the strength of this man’s inner
convictions.) Christians frequently commend the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain for closing its
doors on Sundays to provide a day of rest and refreshment for its employees; this also makes
a countercultural statement about the importance of rest and renewal, not to mention the
necessity of regularly gathering together as God’s people. Such examples are in keeping with
the spirit of the fourth commandment, which is rooted in God’s rest at creation.
Application for today: Copan’s perspective. Scholars taking the “Christ fulfills the
sabbath” perspective would certainly advocate the need for rest and for physical and spiritual
renewal—but they would say that this is not restricted to the Lord’s Day. And, they would
add, no believer should abandon Christian fellowship (Heb 10:25). Yet how often believers
should meet is not commanded—though we see that New Testament believers gather
even daily (Acts 2:46), not just weekly.
Craig Blomberg advises that if Christ fulfills the sabbath and thus is no longer binding on
believers, then believers should perhaps reconsider what worship and rest involve in our
modern society; this includes how churches can more effectively minister to their members
as well as reach unbelievers with the gospel. If we only offer church services on Sunday
mornings at 11:00, we may be missing opportunities to reach people who might be interested
in attending a Saturday or Sunday evening gathering as well (i.e., multiple services). This
might accommodate not only seekers, but Christians within our churches who may have
difficult work schedules as, say, flight attendants, security guards, doctors and nurses, or
other professions with odd schedules. And what of believers who regularly go to restaurants
after Sunday services, pick up last-minute groceries for Sunday dinner, fill their gas tanks for
a Sunday drive, watch football games, or travel back on Sunday evening from a weekend
business trip? Whatever view we may take about the sabbath/Lord’s Day issue, all of us are
grateful that many in society do not take the Lord’s Day off, as the rest of us can benefit from
their services. And we hope they find rest and refreshment on other days.
Blomberg advises that, for the sake of the gospel, churches seek to minister to an
increasingly secular society. With the diminishing of the Judeo-Christian influence in society,
new challenges face our church. This situation in society, he says,
would require our churches having numerous opportunities for worship and more employers
than now do recognizing the need for flex hours and schedules and limits on the amount of
time people can work each week and still remain healthy. But these trends do already seem to
be developing. Rather than decrying the disappearance of an era that will never return . . . ,
let’s see how creative we can become in helping people celebrate multiple mini-Sabbaths
every week, and recognize their entire Christian lives as Sabbaths in the [New Testament]
sense, in ways appropriate to the twenty-first century![9]
Summary
We have explored the importance of the “God first” commands, which articulate different
ways to love the Lord our God with heart, soul, mind and strength. To fear the Lord—that is,
to submit to his authority and to enter into covenant and relationship with him—is the
beginning of wisdom.
From here we move to the second table of the Ten Commandments which instruct us on
how to love our neighbor as ourselves, beginning with marriage and family. The home is
where love is to be learned and refined in the thus-and-so-ness of everyday life. Ideally,
family relationships that live out love, forbearance, reconciliation, forgiveness and joy help
prepare us for neighbor-love outside the home.
Further Reading
Carson, D. A. ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical
Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.
Donato, Christopher John, ed. Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views. Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2011.
Jewett, Paul K. The Lord’s Day: A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Strickland, Wayne G., ed. Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wells, Tom. The Christian and the Sabbath. West Chester, OH: New Covenant Media, 2010.
14Foundational Considerations on Sexuality and the
Purposes of Marriage
God, the Divine Image, and Human Sexuality
God’s standards on human sexuality are treated in Scripture as the most important ones
for relations among people. In the Old Testament, teaching against adultery is emphasized
second only to teaching against idolatry. In the New Testament, both Christ and the apostles
emphasized the vital importance of marital fidelity. Paul includes sexual sins in every one of
his many vice lists, and in most cases they head the list and receive the greatest emphasis.
Why does the Bible view this relationship between the sexes as so important?
Sexual fidelity, more than most virtues, clearly demonstrates the purpose of law: human
welfare. Human sexuality is one of God’s most delightful gifts. But the sordid record of
human history and the anguish of personal experience highlight the basic reality that this joy
is reserved for those who “follow the manufacturer’s instructions.”
This outcome is not surprising because human nature was designed to reflect divine
nature, and God’s law is simply his expressed will that people conform to the moral nature of
God and that their character be shaped into that of the ultimate human, Jesus Christ—the
very image of God.
The image of God is connected to the God-given task to human beings to carry out their
function as priest-kings in this world—to love and worship God and to rule and care for
creation and culture: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27 RSV). In order to carry out their task,
humans have been granted the ability to reason, to create, to love and be loved, to
communicate, to know God, to make responsible choices and to live lives of fidelity and
purity.
We should avoid the mistaken notion that Genesis 1 defines “image” as what
characterizes “male” and “female.” Rather, God created humans to resemble him in certain
limited ways, and he created humans in two different models: male and female. Both male
and female have the capacity to share equally in the love and relationality of the divine
family—the Trinity. So we should be careful about saying that aspects of male and female
are found within the Godhead, since animals and even some plants are male and female.
Furthermore, we should reject the notion that God is male. Rather, God is a sexless being.
However, this does not justify generic reference to God as “our Parent in heaven” or as
“Father and Mother” with Jesus being the “child of God.” John Stott notes that we do not
have the liberty to change the biblical text in even more gender-neutral translations of the
Bible. This would set aside the very foundations of Scripture’s trinitarian language—that
God is “Abba, Father” and that Jesus is his “beloved Son” and the “Son of God.”[1] Scripture
asserts that God is Father, but he acts as a caring, nurturing mother toward his people (Deut
32:18; Ps 131; Is 42:14; 49:15; 66:13; cf. Mt 23:37; Lk 15:8-10).
In a representational way, we are biblically warranted (Gen 1; Eph 5) in viewing
maleness and femaleness and their relationship as reflecting God’s own mysterious relational
nature. Inasmuch as the relational Trinity is one, yet three, and the three are cemented in a
relationship of loving commitment, we can see in the Godhead the ideal model for biblical
marriage. The pervasive Old Testament representation of God as the husband and Israel the
wife, and the New Testament representation of Christ as the bridegroom and the church the
bride, are more than felicitous analogies; they are a self-revelation of God to explain in
human terms through a figure or “picture” what deep personal and spiritual relationships are
designed to be. Human marriage seems designed deliberately to reflect the eternal reality of
the best of all relationships—that of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, primarily, and of
God’s covenant relationship with us.
If Scripture’s discussion of marriage reflects God’s own qualities expressly revealed for
humanity’s best interests, why are these standards the most often violated? Does anything
demonstrate more clearly humanity’s arrogant, foolish, perverse, blind and demonic
fallenness?
Before considering the biblical purposes of marriage, we must consider the topic of
biology, male-female identity and equality, as well as singleness.
Male And Female: Biology and Identity
The most obvious distinction between male and female is biological. Some say it is the
only distinction and that other distinctions are constructed by society—except perhaps those
bearing directly on biological functions necessary to fathering and mothering (perhaps
“inseminating” and “childbearing” would be more accurate descriptions). By contrast, the
Scriptures reject a “unisex” view that totally blends or blurs all distinctions between male
and female. In the Old Testament, women were to distinguish themselves from men (and vice
versa) in the clothing they wore (Deut 22:5). In the New Testament, Paul observes that
“nature itself” teaches us the distinction between male and female (1 Cor 11:14). Not to
observe these distinctions is a dishonor. In Corinth, the length of hair expressed masculinity
(shorter) and femininity (long). A unisex view of male and female is a departure from the
creational order of God’s making humans male and female. Indeed, it is part of God’s
creational order that men and women be opposite-sex attracted rather than same-sex attracted
and that men and women view the opposite sex as distinct from them (1 Cor 11:14).
Biological differences do exist between male and female—hormones, bone density, lung
capacity, the corpus callosum between the two brain hemispheres. Because of this, women
tend to be more relational, comforting, sensitive and nurturing while men tend to be more
aggressive, assertive, competitive and protective. But are these characteristics absolute? No.
They do overlap sufficiently such that some males may be more nurturing, sensitive or
relational than some females.
In various places, Scripture assumes and suggests that certain qualities are associated
with men and women, respectively: “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be
strong” (1 Cor 16:13); “I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the
word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one” ( 1 Jn 2:14); “As a mother
comforts her child, so will I comfort you” (Is 66:13 NIV); “Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how
often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings” (Lk 13:34 niv).
On the other hand, in Scripture we see women with strong drive and initiative (Judg 4–
5; Prov 31). Believers—both men and women—are called to be strong (Eph 6:10). Both men
and women are commanded to be kind and tenderhearted (Eph 4:32). This runs contrary to
the teaching of influential Christian leaders such as John Eldredge (e.g., in his book Wild at
Heart) and Mark Driscoll who emphasize how Jesus exemplified true masculinity; according
to Driscoll, he was the “ultimate fighting Jesus” with “callused hands and big biceps.”[2] So
men in our culture should likewise lay hold of their masculinity and not be passive.
But what if a man by temperament is more focused on the artistic or musical—and so
doesn’t build up his calluses and biceps? Is he not truly masculine? That can’t be right! Now
it is true that men should not be passive—but neither should women! All believers should
“prepare [their] mind for action” (1 Pet 1:13) and be zealous rather than slothful in serving
the Lord (Rom 12:11).
Men and women alike are equally God’s image bearers (Gen 1:27). Each is equally a
sinner, equally under judgment, equally redeemable and equally a potential recipient of
God’s grace. Indeed, “in Christ Jesus” there is “no male and female” ( Gal 3:28 ESV). As the
archetypal human—the second Adam—Christ came to show us what true humanity looks
like. Without diminishing maleness and femaleness and the appropriateness of distinctive
sexual identities corresponding to them (1 Cor 14:11), we are primarily called as human
beings to be Christlike (1 Cor 11:1; Gal 4:19; 1 Thess 1:6). A dear departed friend of ours,
James (“Buck”) Hatch, would say, “Men, if you come to Christ, he’ll make you
tenderhearted. Women, come to Christ and he’ll toughen you up.”[3]
Male and Female Equality
We have seen how Genesis 1:27 makes clear male and female equality, and Galatians
3:28 views believing males and females as equals in Christ. Peter emphasizes how Christian
husbands and wives in Christ are “joint heirs” (1 Pet 3:7). Paul even says that in the
mutuality of marriage, the wife has authority over her husband’s body—and vice versa (1
Cor 7:4).
We are familiar with the egalitarian-complementarian debate, in which there is
disagreement about male-female distinctions in the home and church (more on this in chapter
twenty). Whatever side one takes in the debate, it would be unwarranted to extend these
distinctions to society at large regarding leadership in business, industry and government.
God authorized certain women to be judges, prophetesses, teachers, and “workers” or “co-
workers” in gospel ministry: Miriam (Ex 15:20; cf. Mic 6:4), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2
Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron 34:22-28), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), Isaiah’s wife (Is 8:3), Anna (Lk
2:36-38), Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), Lydia (Acts 16:14-15, 40), Priscilla (Acts
18:2, 24-26; Rom 16:21; 1 Cor 16:19) and many other women (Acts 2:17-18; Rom 16:3-5,
6, 12, 13; 1 Cor 11:5).
Treating woman as inferior—as most societies throughout history have done—is clearly
sinful. Male-female equality spans the Scriptures—from the original creation statement (Gen
1:27) to the fact that all of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests to God (Ex 19:6) to the
example of Christ in his words and actions toward women (especially in Luke’s Gospel) to
Paul’s classic affirmation (Gal 3:28) to Revelation’s affirmation that all Christians are a
kingdom and priests to God (Rev 1:6; 5:10). Men and women stand on level ground before
the Lord. God views men and women as equals, and so must we if we are to imitate God.
Scripture enjoins us to fight for justice on behalf of the downtrodden and oppressed. Yet
the record of inactivity on the part of Christian men who have allowed women to be
oppressed, even when not participating in the oppression, is shameful. We could add too that
many women throughout the Muslim world, for instance, experience this oppression,
including female circumcision, honor killings, wife beating—as the Qur’an enjoins (4:34)—
and her presumed inferior status (2:282), as well as the overall undermining of personal
identity and opportunity for self-determination.[4] In India, over a hundred thousand young
women are burned to death each year in “kitchen fires.”[5] On the other hand, the strident,
angry, overassertive stance of some Christian women on their own behalf does not resemble
the spirit of Christ.
When God created the male, he pronounced an inadequacy, an incompleteness: “It is not
good that man should be alone.” So God created a partner (“helper”) to complement him, to
complete him (Gen 2:18). But make no mistake: the word translated “helper”
(Heb ‘ēzer, Gen 2:18) is a term of strength; God himself is the strong “helper” of his people
(Ps 10:14; 30:10; 54:4; etc.)! God created human beings for community—to reflect the
image of the triune, God-in-community. And in marriage, God designed for a husband and
wife to share a life partnership in all its richness and fullness.
But if God created marriage for husband and wife, does this mean that marriage is the
only way for a human being to be complete? What of the unmarried person?
Singleness
Not only were Jesus and Paul unmarried. Noted Christians such as Amy Carmichael,
Corrie ten Boom and John Stott were as well. Despite this, Christians commonly make one
of two errors concerning singleness: that to be single is abnormal or strange, or that
singleness is a more holy state than marriage.
Scripture clearly teaches that obedient believers who are single can find higher
fulfillment in their relationship with God (1 Cor 7). Christ also taught that some people have
the ability to remain single for the sake of God’s kingdom ( Mt 19:10-12). If a person does
not have this gift, Paul’s instructions are clear that they should marry (1 Cor 7:2). If
circumstances impose singleness, one should ask in faith for the ability to live happily and
productively in that God-ordained state. According to Paul, the advantages for those who
have this gift are twofold: a more exclusive and wholehearted relationship with the Lord and
the potential of more unencumbered ministry for the Lord.
How does a person tell if he “has the gift”? Paul tells us one evidence of lacking this
ability: burning with lust (1 Cor 7:8-9). If desire for sexual fulfillment is so strong that one is
caused to sin because of it, one does not have the gift, at least not as yet. Paul also speaks
more generally of “the man . . . who is under no compulsion but has control over his own
will” (1 Cor 7:37NIV). It would seem that the unmarried person who is able to live freely
without consuming thoughts of marriage or distracting preoccupation with those of the
opposite sex should reflect on the possibility that God may have given him this special gift.
And well-meaning Christians should not pressure such gifted persons into marriage. If one
chooses to live without marriage for the higher goals Paul enunciates, such a person should
ask God for this freedom of spirit and should channel her energies into service for God’s
kingdom. If a person does not have the ability to live “at ease” without marriage, but
singleness is thrust on her by the circumstances of life, the “gift” should be sought in the
same way. Moreover, churches and Christian organizations should intentionally foster
fellowship opportunities for single brothers and sisters in Christ in which conversation and
appropriate gestures of physical affection such as hugs—our culture’s version of greeting
with a “holy kiss” (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; etc.)!—can be expressed in ways that do not
sexually arouse or raise expectations of marriage.[6]
On the other hand, it is still “not good that man should be alone”; even if one does not
marry, a companion or close friend of the same sex could certainly be part of God’s plan
(Prov 18:24; Eccles 4:7-12). Women seem better equipped to remain single than do men. For
example, the suicide rate among single men is more than twice that of married people,
whereas the rate among single women is little more than half that of married people.[7] The
gift is certainly more easily discernible in men since the sexual urge seems innately stronger,
and consequently the control of it more difficult.
That said, it would seem that the emotional drive for the security of an intimate
relationship in marriage is often stronger in women. Thus, whether control is needed for the
God-given physical sexual desire or the God-given emotional desire for belonging, one may
have another, extraordinary gift—the ability to live in contentment without the normal
provision of a marriage partner. Our sex-saturated society dismisses self-control and self-
discipline as being out of touch with basic human drives. The New Testament’s affirmation
of singleness and self-control is another expression of Christ’s upside-down kingdom that
goes against the grain of society’s priorities (cf. Lk 16:15).
Now, because of what Christ and Paul had to say about the state of singleness, and
possibly because of their example as well, the teaching has arisen that marriage is somehow
second-best and that singleness is a better or holier way. Actually, in church history, this
teaching may have come as much from Greek Platonic dualism and Gnosticism (in which the
material world is inferior and the body is the source of evil) as it did from misunderstanding
Christ and Paul. Whatever its roots, the idea has come to be firmly embedded in Christian
thought as can be seen in the law of celibacy for the priesthood of the Roman Catholic
Church. But the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is part of God’s creational order (Gen
2:18; Prov 18:22; 1 Tim 3:2; 4:1-3; 5:14; Heb 13:4) and the normal plan for his children. The
idea that there is anything unclean or polluted in sexual relations in the marriage relationship
is wrong—indeed a heresy (“doctrines of demons,” 1 Tim 4:1-4). Let us turn then to consider
the great biblical theme of marriage.
Marriage: a Personal Narrative
At the request of the editor, I (Robertson) have included a portion of aChristianity
Today article, “Muriel’s Blessing,” on commitment in marriage.[8] This later appeared in my
book A Promise Kept. There I tell the story of my twenty-five-year journey down the
darkening tunnel of Alzheimer’s with my first wife, Muriel. Yet I still maintain it is nothing
special. Rather, it was my high privilege to watch over my beloved when she could no longer
watch over herself.
The five-column headline read: “Love Helps Alzheimer’s Victims Survive, Study Says.” The
reporter wrote: “What’s love got to do with it? Just about everything, says a researcher who
studied what happens in a marriage when a spouse gets Alzheimer’s disease.” In Prof. Lore
Wright’s study of 47 couples over a two-year period, she had predicted with 100 percent
accuracy who would die first, based on her analysis of the love relationship between husband
and wife.
I attended a workshop in which another expert told us that there were two reasons people
keep a family member at home rather than in a nursing facility: economic necessity or
feelings of guilt. Afterwards I spoke with her privately, trying to elicit some other possible
motive for keeping someone at home. But she insisted those were the only two motives.
Finally I asked, “What about love?” “Oh,” she replied, “we put that under guilt.” So much
for love.
What some people find so hard to understand is that loving Muriel isn’t hard. They wonder
about my former loves—like my work. A college freshman heard that I had resigned as
president of Columbia International University to care for my wife. “Do you miss being
president?” Scott asked as we sat in our little garden. I told him I’d never thought about it,
but, on reflection, no. As exhilarating as my work had been, I enjoyed learning to cook and
keep house. No, I’d never looked back.
But that night I did reflect on his question and turned to the Lord. “Father, I like this
assignment, and I have no regrets. But if a coach puts a man on the bench, he must not want
him in the game. You needn’t tell me, of course, but I’d like to know—why didn’t you need
me in the game?”
I didn’t sleep well that night and awoke contemplating the puzzle. Muriel was still mobile at
that time, so we set out on our morning walk around the block. She wasn’t too sure on her
feet, so we went slowly and held hands as we always do. This day I heard footsteps behind
me and looked back to see the familiar form of a local derelict behind us. He staggered past
us, then turned and looked us up and down. “Tha’s good. I likes ’at,” he said. “Tha’s real
good. I likes it.” He turned and headed back down the street, mumbling to himself over and
over, “Tha’s good. I likes it.”
When Muriel and I reached our little garden and sat down, his words came back to me. Then
the realization hit me; the Lord had spoken through an inebriated old derelict. “It is you who
are whispering to my spirit, ‘I likes it, tha’s good,’” I said aloud. “I may be on the bench, but
if you like it and say it’s good, that’s all that counts.”
Some of my best friends don’t agree. One wrote last week, “Muriel doesn’t know you
anymore, doesn’t know anything, really, so it’s time to put her in a nursing home and get on
with life.” That day may come—when, because of a change in my health or hers, she could
be better cared for by others—but for now, she needs me, and I need her.[9]
The Purposes of Marriage
The Bible begins with a wedding and it ends with a wedding—with the greatest love
story in human literature in between. Christ performed his first miracle at a wedding, thereby
sanctifying it. Yet, sadly, marriages increasingly end in failure. Some pastors testify that they
have never found a truly happy marriage. Puritan philosopher-theologian Jonathan Edwards
observed that he and his loving wife Sarah shared an “uncommon union”; apparently the
kind of intimacy and partnership they had was not the norm in their own day. We are flooded
with marriage seminars and books on marriage; counselors multiply and still cannot begin to
meet the demand of people seeking help for ailing relationships in marriage. But the trouble
seems to grow, not abate.
Though marriage may find substantial help through wise psychological counsel, we
believe that 90 percent of the problems in marriage result directly from sin and that
obedience to the plain teaching of Scripture would of itself, in most cases, produce the kind
of marriage God intends.
What does God intend for marriage? Let us consider the purposes of marriage.
Relational unity or wholeness. “No man is an island,” wrote John Donne. In ancient
Greece, Aristotle referred to human beings as social animals. Humans were not meant to live
alone, but in community; being hardwired for community is a manifestation of the image of
the triune God. In contrast to Eden’s animals, the male at first had no female complement. By
himself as a male, he was incomplete (Gen 2:18-25; Mt 19:3-6). So the first purpose of
marriage is relationship or fellowship, oneness, wholeness—love. Love in marriage means
binding ourselves to another and surrendering certain freedoms of singleness. But in making
such commitments and sacrifices, we find joy.
Procreation. The first man and woman were instructed to be fruitful and multiply (Gen
1:28). Animals do this too, of course, but with a major difference. Scripture gives a pattern of
the home in which parents are fully responsible to care for their children. The procreation is
in the context of family, according to God’s pattern. The children’s ditty gets the order right:
“First comes love; then comes marriage; then comes baby in a baby carriage.” Children
should spring forth from loving, committed relationship, not mere biological urges.
Many couples opt not to have children; most often the reason is human selfishness.
Further, the application of the “be fruitful” command may be adapted in a world of densely
populated regions, but in general, this is one divine command humankind has obeyed of late!
But just as some are called to forgo marriage for the kingdom of God’s sake, so some couples
may be called upon to forgo or postpone parenting for the kingdom’s sake. But the motives
that keep couples deliberately childless must be examined. As we will note in chapter twenty,
such couples bear the burden of proof in remaining childless since having children is one
purpose in God’s plan for normal human marriage (Ps 127:3-5). Childproofing one’s
marriage rather than welcoming children often reflects a self-centeredness all too common in
our culture. This is a tragedy, as children help parents to become more virtuous. It’s been
rightly said that children raise their parents more than parents raise their children and that, in
many ways, parents need children more than children need parents.
The beauty of God’s plan can be seen in the exuberant joy a young child brings into the
home, the strength young adults and parents provide one another, and the companionship and
security children provide parents in old age, not to mention the honor rendered God through
yet another generation of those who love and serve him. God’s plan is good.
Demonstration of love. The marriage relationship is used throughout Scripture to instruct
us concerning God’s desired relationship with people (e.g., Eph 5:22-23). This is the third
purpose of marriage. God is love and from the overflow of this love among Father, Son and
Spirit came the creation of a being on the same pattern, designed to love and to be loved as in
the divine model. A married couple should be an earthly display of the love Christ has for the
church. While marriage is limited to this life, it is to be informed and shaped by unending
divine love (Eph 5:1). And the more we learn of one relationship (whether the heavenly or
the earthly), the more we are able to understand the other.
Let us examine in greater detail the first purpose of marriage, the unity of husband and
wife.
Excursus: Three Elements to Wholeness
As we saw, God’s first purpose in marriage is loving unity or fellowship. This very
positive goal of oneness or wholeness brings with it a negative aspect—separation. A man
must leave his father and mother before he can adequately cleave to his wife in full identity
of life (Gen 2:24). Scripture gives ample evidence that this separation was not essentially
physical or geographical. To leave psychologically—that is, to change primary loyalties and
to forge a life-path together as a couple—lies at the foundation of successful wholeness in
marriage.
Separation also includes all other exclusive or sexually intimate relationships as well. All
the subsequent laws concerning marriage emphasize God’s intention that two who are joined
together must have no sexual relationships of mind or body with anyone else. This negative
separation lays an indispensable foundation for the three positive elements of this unity that
God intended: oneness of heart and mind, oneness of body, and oneness in their relationship
with God.
Oneness in heart and mind. The first positive element in oneness is not physical union,
but the completing of another in deep love relationship that embraces all of life.
Even the oneness of bodies cannot be fulfilling in its most satisfying potential unless
there is oneness to some degree in spirit as well, because sex is at root a psychological—
indeed, spiritual—phenomenon. Heart unity provides the basis for experiencing the delights
of physical ecstasy, but it goes far beyond the momentary physical thrill—and beyond the
times of sexual engagement when one or both are not at their psychological best—by
embracing a total-life commitment to pleasing the other and finding joy in this mutual
satisfaction.
The biblical standard for oneness and wholeness is love, which includes sharing of
interests, activities, purposes and goals. Of course, partners may have interests and activities
independent of one another, but their oneness of purpose and loving identity calls for open
verbal sharing of all aspects of life. Communication—an endeavor that requires a couple’s
constant attention—is the channel of unity. Without it, true oneness will prove elusive.
But oneness is more than self-giving love and open communication, which can and often
should characterize other human relations. These alone will not hold a marriage together for
long. The “in-love” romantic euphoria of the newlywed may soon be dissipated under the
impact of the harsh realities of life in which two independent beings are shut up to one
another, especially when the desires of one begin to impinge on the desires or rights of the
other. Communication can be a weapon to destroy unity as well as a channel in which loving
unity may flow. What is the essential ingredient, then, if it is not love?
The key to a successful marriage and the cement that holds two people together for a
lifetime is commitment. Ideally, this commitment springs from Christian discipleship in
which two maturing, growing disciples come together as an extension of their walk with
Christ and supported by the Christian community as well as family. This commitment
involves the non-negotiable nurturing of an exclusive relationship and serves as the only
basis for true oneness in marriage. Without this commitment to fidelity and loyalty, any
relationship, no matter how loving and affectionate at the outset, is too fragile to survive.
Furthermore, without this commitment, there is a tentativeness that undermines the
relationship and belies the profession of love.
What makes a marriage is a mutual promise—a binding, lifelong vow. Yet today, couples
often approach marriage unrealistically and along utilitarian lines; that is, they consider
marriage a means to self-fulfillment: “my spouse is going to meet all my needs.” No,
marriage is a sign and demonstration of God’s character as the great covenant-maker and
covenant-keeper. In a covenant, the crucial elements are fidelity and integrity, not emotion.
In marriage, it is not romantic feelings nor compatibility nor sexual adjustment that make
success possible, but fidelity to one’s covenant vow, with the help of God.
But oneness of spirit is not the only element of biblical unity in marriage.
Oneness in body. When God created Eve and brought her to Adam, the word was clear:
The two shall be one flesh. This is one of the great, joyful, uninhibited themes of the Song of
Songs. Furthermore, Scripture in each era teaches directly that this is the good will of God
(Ex 21:10; Prov 5:15-19; 1 Cor 7:3-5; Heb 13:4). In the union of the body the scriptural goal
is clearly mutual satisfaction. No grounds in Scripture can be found for considering anything
in this intimate sharing of body as perverted or wrong so long as there is mutual delight.
True, a spouse should not selfishly pursue sexual pleasure at the other’s expense, which
violates the law of love.
However, there may be occasions when one spouse is less inclined toward sexual
intimacy than the other—the “mood” may not always be “just right” for both—yet the less-
inclined at the moment can still lovingly engage with the other one to bring sexual
satisfaction because of the cementing or bonding that this act brings to the marriage. When a
couple does not work to sustain the sexual relationship, this neglect can lead to relational
fraying in other areas as well. Though perhaps a surprise to many, the Puritans emphasized
the importance and blessings of the sexual relationship within marriage—a point observed by
C. S. Lewis: “The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely
the work of . . . Puritan poets.”[10]For example, the Puritan William Gouge wrote that
husbands and wives should have intercourse “with good will and delight, willingly, readily,
and cheerfully.” Puritan pastor Richard Baxter advised, “Keep your conjugal love in constant
heat and vigour.”[11]
Unity in God. In God’s intent the relationship of husband and wife is to be completed in
their oneness with God. The relationship between Adam and Eve began to deteriorate when
they chose alienation from God. Perhaps their creation of clothing was the intuitive response
and first evidence of this interdependence of the two relationships, horizontal between
husband and wife and vertical between each and the Lord. Oneness in Christ gives depth and
staying power to the human relationship.
Thus, in God’s marvelous design for marriage the three unities—oneness of heart and
mind, oneness of body, and oneness in God—reinforce one another in a glorious spiral
upward toward the fulfillment of God’s purpose in marriage.
Further Reading
Cooper, John. Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for
God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Crabb, Larry. The Marriage Builder. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Davidson, Richard. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2007.
Keller, Timothy, and Kathy. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of
Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.
McQuilkin, Robertson. A Promise Kept. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1998.
Wangerin, Walter. As for Me and My House: Crafting Your Marriage to Last. Nashville:
Nelson, 2001.
15Violations of God’s Purposes Within Marriage
Since God planned marriage to be so good, he has, not surprisingly, created safeguards
for his people to preserve its goodness. These are necessary because there are many enemies
of God’s good plan, many ways of abusing human sexuality that subvert and destroy the
purposes he had in mind. Not surprisingly, sexuality and idolatry are often intertwined in
Scripture.[1]
Marriage to An Unbeliever
The first purpose of marriage is loving companionship—the unity of two in a relationship
mirroring the nature of God himself as revealed in Christ (see Eph 5:22-23). One way to
violate this unity from the outset is to marry an unbeliever. For the believer, Paul says, one is
“free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39). But marriage to an
unbeliever reveals a very low view of marriage or of one’s relationship to God, or both. For
unity to be complete, oneness in spirit is the prime requisite—the first purpose of marriage. If
the most important relationship in life is with God, how can a couple have unity at any real
depth when one is committed to God and the other is not? The couple is working from two
different blueprints for life.
Marriage to an unbeliever also puts in great jeopardy the second purpose—raising
children in a God-fearing home: Will the children be allowed to go to church? Will the
unbelieving spouse oppose Christian instruction for children and even undermine the
Christian faith? Won’t the children certainly be negatively influenced by one parent’s
spiritual aloofness or antagonism?
Finally, it completely rules out the third purpose of demonstrating the relationship God
desires with his people: What of reading Scripture and praying together? What of giving
financially in support of God’s kingdom—or of opening up one’s home to missionaries or
ministry to international students? If the believing partner gives up his relationship with the
Lord, some measure of unity can be built on a godless foundation as if both were
unbelievers. But unless the unbeliever comes to Christ, no Christian marriage can be
achieved, and no oneness at the deepest levels can be experienced.
Professing Christians who don’t think sharing a common faith in marriage is a huge issue
are most likely those who do not have a deep faith themselves. But it is far better to remain
unmarried than to have quasi-intimacy with an unbeliever and move through life at such
variance on spiritual, moral and practical matters. We can tell many stories of believers who
regret having entered into spiritually mixed marriages because of the conflicts and tensions
this has caused—or these professing believers have made shipwreck of their own faith
because they did not hold on to a good conscience (1 Tim 1:19).
Again, the Bible expressly prohibits such a union (Deut 7:3-4; Neh 13:23-27; 1 Cor 7:39;
cf. 2 Cor 6:14-18). Of course, one who is married to an unbeliever should remain married ( 1
Cor 7:12-13). Though union will be limited, it is better than divorce, according to Paul.
How should others relate to a Christian who is planning marriage to an unbeliever,
besides prayer against the consummation of the plan and biblical counsel? Any minister of
the gospel who officiates at a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever participates in
the sin. Having said this, however, we should emphasize that Christian people and pastors
need to relate to the Christian who is bent on unbiblical marriage so that a trusting
relationship is maintained even if the advice is rejected. Because the continuance of the
marriage becomes the will of God once it has been consummated, it is important for
Christian people to help the Christian partner come to repentance for disobeying God, and to
assist in building as true a unity as possible in the mixed marriage. Only following
the acknowledgment of sin will the believing partner be in a position to “consecrate” the
children (1 Cor 7:14), provide a Christlike model for the unbelieving spouse, and, hopefully,
win that spouse to the Lord (1 Pet 3:1-4).
Marriage has enough challenges as it is, but a mixed spiritual marriage generally brings
with it sorrow, regret, marital conflict and spiritual compromise in one form or another.
Adultery
The most serious violation of marriage is adultery—an activity excoriated in the
Scriptures, second only to idolatry. Infidelity, though commonplace in most societies, has had
few advocates in Western society until recently. But now adultery is promoted by popular
media and naturalistic scientists and philosophers. Apparently, males in particular are
biologically “wired” for sexual promiscuity—and not for lifelong monogamous commitment.
[2] Of course, this view commits the is-ought (or “naturalistic”) fallacy: if that’s how
males are, then that’s how they ought to be. But why not argue this way for rape? A biologist
and an anthropologist attempted to give evidence for the biological basis for rape: males who
can’t find a mate rape women because of a subconscious drive to survive and reproduce. But
should this alleged fact in the animal kingdom (“is”) become normalized or even obligatory
behavior for humans (“ought”)?[3] After all, we come into the world with a self-centered
tendency (“is”); should we simply affirm and normalize this (“ought”)? No, we should
instead resist this impulse.
The biblical prohibition against adultery is a protective measure, the violation of which
brings destruction. Fidelity in marriage promotes the well-being of all in the family: it
preserves the integrity of the couple and maximizes the enjoyment of sex itself; it protects
the more vulnerable wife; it creates a wholesome atmosphere for bringing up children who
learn to put honor and faithfulness ahead of pleasure and instant gratification; and it honors
God, who himself exhibits faithfulness to his people. Adultery is ultimately a violation
against God himself (Gen 39:9; Ps 51:4; Amos 2:7).
Adultery does massive damage to marriage—a relationship that is to be loving,
permanent, exclusive, secure and intimate. In the wake of adultery, trust can never be quite
the same again; a third party will often intrude on the intimacy, in the mind of one partner or
both. True unity is fractured. So devastating is adultery to marriage that Christ permits the
innocent party to divorce (Mt 5:32).
What’s more, adultery does not suddenly happen. It begins in the mind. It begins with
dwelling on lustful thoughts, then fantasizing, then lowering one’s sexual guard with others,
engaging in emotional affairs and going beyond (see our discussion of sexual lust below).
While some claim that a variety of sexual partners intensifies sexual pleasure, the purported
thrill—the “passing pleasures of sin” (Heb 11:25)—proves to be hollow. Such pursuits
reduce a person to “a loaf of bread” (Prov 6:26). And why think monogamy should be
reduced to monotony? What of spouses showing romantic creativity and surprise, of taking
time to cultivate sexual intimacy, and simply sharing life as best friends?
Furthermore, fidelity in marriage provides special protection for the most vulnerable
partner, the wife. She is more vulnerable for the following reasons. First, her deepest drive is
not for physical sex so much as for belonging. When she shares her body in the secure bonds
of permanent belonging, she is satisfied. But when the belonging is illusory or temporary or
uncertain, she suffers loss at the deepest level, a loss that most men do not even understand,
let alone experience. Second, if the physical relationship is paramount, she can only
“compete” for a few years. The male in our society does not suffer the same fate as the
female. Advertising, the media and cultural mores seem to dictate that a woman is physically
attractive in direct proportion to her youth. Yet a true marriage focuses on oneness of heart,
and in the realm of the spirit both partners have the potential of growing more and more
beautiful throughout the years (Prov 31:30). When this is the basis, a woman grows in her
sexual desirability through the years because that desirability is set in the context of total
unity, loving giving of life, a lifetime of fully shared experience. The third area of greater
vulnerability is suggested by the fact that men remarry at a rate far surpassing that of women
—often because women are likely caring for their children. For this reason, a broken
marriage very often means acute loneliness for the ex-wife that the ex-husband may not
experience. And the woman left with children following a broken marriage
becomes financially vulnerable, as the statistics bear out.[4]Even though women’s liberation
pressed for both sexual freedom and equality, they are intrinsically opposed to each other
since risk and responsibility fall naturally—biologically—on the woman more than the man.
[5]
Excursus: the Question of Interracial Marriage
Some have held that interracial marriage is prohibited in Scripture, but a careful reading
of the texts will indicate that it was not Jewish-Gentile marriage as a racial mix (for many of
the surrounding peoples were of the same “race”), but believer-unbeliever marriage that God
prohibited. It was not the foreignness of Solomon’s wives, but their foreign religions that led
him astray.
Some have held that Paul’s word about God setting “bounds of habitation” was an
indication that God intended races to remain separate geographically and thus maintain their
racial purity. Therefore, by implication, God is against intermarriage. That can hardly be
considered responsible exegesis, but this is the key New Testament passage for the teaching
that racial intermarriage is wrong. In the first place, Paul’s intent was the very opposite. He
was speaking to the leaders of a people (“nation”) who considered themselves different in
origin and vastly superior to all others, whom they classified as barbarians. Paul tells these
Greeks that the God who created them is the Creator of the entire human race, which has a
common origin “from one blood” (Acts 17:26 NIV).
But some say that Paul alludes here to Moses’ hymn in which he uses similar terminology
(Deut 32:8). This is not much help to the position, however, because Moses is simply
praising God for setting limits for the surrounding nations to provide a place for Israel. We
see Moses himself marrying a Cushite—an “interracial marriage” opposed by Aaron and
Miriam but vindicated by God (Num 12).
While kosher laws, clothing laws, and planting laws in Israel were to remind these people
about their set-apart status from the rest of the nations, this was not a prohibition against
marriage to (believing) non-Israelites. Indeed, the Scriptures matter-of-factly, even positively,
mention the incorporation of foreigners into the nation—the “mixed multitude” coming out
of Egypt, Moses’ Cushite wife, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite and others. And in the church
at Antioch (Acts 13:1), we have testimony of multiethnic ministry leadership—with the likes
of Paul (Saul) himself with Barnabas alongside Lucius from Cyrene (Lybia today) and
Simeon, who was called Niger (he was black).
On the pastoral side, it should probably be added as a footnote that crosscultural
marriages involving radically distinct cultures are notoriously hazardous because of the
natural challenges in marriage itself compounded by crosscultural conflict. (Note that this is
distinct from cross-racial marriages within the same culture or within similar cultures.) Those
contemplating such a union should be made aware of the additional handicaps involved, for
unity is much more difficult to achieve with one of another culture. Another major problem is
the link with family each partner brings into the marriage. In some societies, children of
mixed marriages may suffer. So while certain crosscultural marriages may not be advisable,
they certainly cannot be held unethical on biblical grounds.
Polygamy
It is more typically the female who desires a caring, intimate, secure relationship, and
males have tended to be more detached and less sexually discriminating than their female
counterparts. And throughout history, this has included the tendency toward polygamy in
some societies. Social factors also have contributed to polygamous arrangements. In societies
where females far outnumber males (because of war, hunting or other dangerous male
activities) and the female is an economic benefit, polygamy has prevailed. But when male
and female are in equal supply and the maintenance of a wife is an expense, monogamy
prevails. For example, in the time of Christ, during the Pax Romana (Roman peace),
monogamy was the custom for Greek, Roman and Hebrew people.
According to some biblical scholars, monogamy is viewed as the ideal marital
arrangement for humankind, but they state that the Bible nowhere directly condemns
polygamy and nowhere directly affirms monogamy as the only legitimate arrangement.
Furthermore, polygamy is definitely not viewed in Scripture as sexual impurity. Marriage to
a second partner was to be as indissoluble as to the first. Infidelity was the result of breaking
that relationship or defrauding one of the wives, not of having the relationship and faithfully
adhering to marriage vows.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that polygamy is in fact prohibited by the law of
Moses—even if persons like David and Solomon practiced it. Richard Davidson argues
that Leviticus 18:18 prohibits taking a “rival wife”: “Do not take your wife’s sister [literally,
‘a woman to her sister’] as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is
living.”[6] For example, Elkanah took “rival wives,” Hannah and Penninah (1 Sam 1:6).
Whatever approach one takes on polygamy, the Scriptures clearly illustrate how
polygamy predictably leads to conflict within a household (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon), and thus we are right to view this arrangement negatively rather than positively or
even neutrally. For one thing, it diminishes or inhibits the proper fulfillment of two becoming
one flesh (Gen 2:24).
A further reinforcement of monogamy over polygamy is the teaching of Paul regarding
leaders in the church. A polygamous man was not eligible for holding the office of deacon or
elder in the church since he is not a “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6). Elders
were called to exemplify the divine, creational ideal.
This “husband of one wife” passage has been variously interpreted—in large part because
this is a unique term, found only in the Pastoral Epistles. Does it mean that an elder must be
married? Likely not, since neither Paul nor Christ himself would be eligible for spiritual
leadership in the church. And must one likewise insist that the elder have children ( 1 Tim
3:4)? Few would insist on this as a requirement. Does this mean fidelity or purity—a “one-
wife-sort-of-man”? Grammatically this is not likely, and the passage seems to imply more
than this. Or does this mean that a divorced and remarried person is no longer eligible for
spiritual leadership? Some hold further—and consistently—that a person who is remarried
after the death of his wife would be ineligible. But remarriage after the death of one’s partner
is permitted by Paul (Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:39); indeed, it is good (1 Tim 5:14). Thus, this
interpretation would seem to be a strange requirement. Most likely, the passage focuses on
living faithfully with one’s spouse. Most interpreters—including the earliest commentators—
have held that this passage prohibits polygamists, and this is certainly an implication of
faithfulness to one spouse and moral purity. But this requirement would obviously prohibit
adulterers as well as serially divorced and remarried persons from holding positions of
spiritual leadership in the church.
It would be technically incorrect to say that Jesus’ appeal to creation in Matthew 19 is
directed against polygamy. Jesus is condemning the breaking, not so much addressing the
joining. As with homosexuality, Jesus was not addressing ethical topics that were off the
beaten path of his monogamous culture. If he considered polygamy a good option, he could
have pleased many by proposing it as at least one solution to the problem of troubled
marriages.
What does this teaching have to do with our contemporary monogamous society? Well,
not all contemporary societies are monogamous. True, many of the polygamous societies of
Africa, for example, are becoming monogamous because the sexes are equalizing in
numbers, and extra wives have become a financial liability because of changing employment
structures. But for the Christian missionary to require a polygamous truth-seeker to divorce
all but his first wife in order to become a member of the church is clearly a violation of
scriptural teaching. Certainly he is excluded from spiritual leadership as noted above, and it
is quite legitimate to require monogamy as the standard for the yet-to-be married or those
with only one wife at conversion. But to demand of the new believer that he put away one or
more wives not only violates the pervasive teaching of Scripture on divorce, but causes great
disruption in society and risks bringing the gospel into ill repute.
A more pressing concern for our day has to do with divorce and remarriage, to which we
now turn.
Divorce
It is hard to exaggerate the evil effects of divorce on the mates involved, the children and
society, as the fabric of its basic institution rips apart. No wonder God hates divorce (Mal
2:14-16).
A common, but mythical, statistic is that Christians in America divorce as frequently as
non-Christians. This has been trotted out by well-meaning pastors to reinforce the
importance of marriage—and by skeptics of religion to say that “faith” doesn’t make a moral
difference. While the divorce rate for the nonreligious in America is 50 percent, the divorce
rate for adherents of religions is 42 percent. Six out of ten professing evangelical Christians
who never attend church are divorced or separated—compared with 38 percent who attend
worship weekly. Compared to secular Americans, committed evangelicals are 35 percent less
likely to divorce while nominal evangelicals are 20 percent more likely to divorce. So the
difference between nominal Christianity and a more serious faith that includes worship and
fellowship does make a difference when it comes to divorce.[7]
However, we can only take small comfort from such divorce statistics. Divorce is
wreaking havoc on our society, and the combination of individualism and pragmatism in our
culture has eroded familial commitments and thus contributed to family breakdown—and
thus to the proper function of society—and to diminished respect for divine and scriptural
authority. C. S. Lewis described the problem in his inimitable way.
In his youth, Lewis wrote, “progressive people” considered traditionalists prudish, and
they asserted that sexual impulses should be treated as any other impulse—that is, they
should be freely expressed. The fact is, Lewis pointed out, no civilized person treats natural
impulses that way. For example, the full expression of the instinct of self-preservation is
cowardice, and of the desire to acquire, avarice. And sentries must resist the impulse to sleep
while they are standing guard on the city wall. So why do we so highly privilege the sexual
impulse? Lewis responded:
Now though I see no good reason for giving sex this privilege, I think I see a strong cause. It
is this. It is part of the nature of a strong erotic passion . . . that it makes more towering
promises than any other emotion To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction
that one will go on being in love until one dies and that possession of the beloved will confer,
not merely frequent ecstasies, but settled, fruitful, deep-rooted, lifelong happiness. Hence all
seems to be at stake. If we miss this chance we shall have lived in vain. At the very thought
of such a doom we sink into fathomless depths of self-pity.
Unfortunately these promises are found often to be quite untrue. Every experienced adult
knows this to be so as regards all erotic passions (except the one he himself is feeling at the
moment) When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are
great lovers but because they are also—I must put it crudely—good people: controlled, loyal,
fair-minded, mutually adaptable people. If we establish a “right to (sexual) happiness” that
supersedes all the ordinary rules of behavior, we do so not because of what our passion
shows itself to be in experience but because of what it professes to be while we are in the
grip of it. Hence, while the bad behavior is real and works miseries and degradations, the
happiness which was the object of the behavior turns out again and again to be illusory. -
Everyone (except Mr. A. and Mrs. B. [two married people who are divorcing in order to
marry each other]) knows that Mr. A. in a year or so may have the same reason for deserting
his new wife as for deserting his old. He will see himself again as the great lover, and his pity
for himself will exclude all pity for the woman.[8]
Divorce and the “Matthean exception.” What does Scripture say about divorce? Christ
taught clearly that God’s original intent was permanence in marriage (Mk 10:1-12; Lk
16:18). The model is God himself, as illustrated in the book of Hosea; God, though
grievously sinned against more than any human spouse, forgave and remained faithful to his
covenant. Even in the Old Testament, divorce was explicitly forbidden in some cases (Deut
22:13-21, 28-30). At the same time, Moses, Jesus and Paul recognized that the ideal was not
always met and thus set up restrictions and safeguards to correct the failure or to limit the
damage where uncorrectable.
In the key Old Testament passage (Deut 24:1-4), Moses did not endorse divorce, but
neither did he forbid it. He simply set up some guidelines to protect the wife when a husband
divorced her for some “indecency”; this probably refers to “any lewd, immoral behavior,
sometimes including though not restricted to adultery—e.g., lesbianism or sexual misconduct
that fell short of intercourse,” though still shocking.[9] Christ taught that this legislation was a
concession to Israel’s “hardness of heart” (Mt 19:3-9). The husband could not simply send
his wife away and then afterward take her back on a whim. He had to make it official in
writing so that she would be able to marry someone else rather than be treated as a pariah in
society. Further, in some unexplained way, should she ever become free again, the first
husband could not remarry her because she was “defiled.” Since the rationale is not given,
and since God’s explicit instructions to Hosea seem to be the opposite—taking back the
harlot again and again—most Protestants do not seek to apply this aspect of the law today in
the church age.
But did Christ or Paul make any concessions to human failure? This is the crux of the
debate. In both Matthew passages on the subject (Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9), Christ forbids divorce
“except on the ground of unchastity” (RSV). For those who believe there is never any ground
for divorce recognized by God—based on Mark 10:11-12, where no exception is given—
several approaches have been taken.
Some have disallowed the exception phrase, claiming it is Matthew’s comments on what
Jesus intended or a later writer’s addition to soften Jesus’ hard teaching. But we have no
textual reason to doubt this is the authentic, authoritative word of Christ. Others restrict the
definition of the term unchastity or fornication to the rare case of a Jewish man, like Joseph,
who in the betrothal period comes to believe that his espoused is not a virgin; thus the Jewish
betrothal would be dissolved (cf. Mt 1:19). Still others argue that “fornication” refers only to
the specific sin of certain marriages forbidden in Leviticus 18. After all, the Jerusalem
council (Acts 15) offers guidance to Gentile Christians in light of four key Jewish
sensitivities rooted in Leviticus 17–18: eating strangled animals, eating meat with blood still
in it, eating food sacrificed to idols, and fornication. So Matthew, writing for a Jewish
audience, would have felt the force of Leviticus 18’s list of illicit sexual relations so that he
permitted divorce in light of their violation. This particular argument assumes the early
church placed these ceremonial restrictions on Gentiles with Leviticus 18 as their reference
point—an interpretation few accept.
The above arguments are inadequate. “Fornication” or “sexual immorality” (porneia) is a
broad term for all varieties of sexual sin. The word “adultery” (moicheia) is sometimes
distinguished from “fornication” (cf. Mt 5:32; 19:9; 1 Cor 6:9: “fornicators . . . adulterers”);
sometimes the meaning of these words overlaps. Jesus’ hearers would have understood this
to be any sexual infidelity in marriage—including incest, adultery, homosexual relations and
the like—not simply “adultery.” The context of the Matthew passages does not restrict
grounds for divorce to adultery alone.
A third approach focuses on grammar: divorce is permitted on such grounds, but not
remarriage following divorce. Most scholars do not hold this view since the presumption in
Jesus’ day—in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds—was that if divorce was justified,
then so was remarriage. Divorce was a dissolution, not simply a separation; thus, all things
being equal, the certificate of divorce (Deut 24:1-4) indicated a woman was free to marry. In
fact, while Jesus permits, but does not demand, divorce for sexual infidelity, Jewish law did
demand divorce for it. This is why one can easily see why Mark 10:11-12 would not include
reference to sexual infidelity.[10] Thus, even though some evangelicals appeal to the witness
of early Christian writers who rejected the possibility of remarriage after divorce, we must
give priority to Jesus’ own words in their first-century Jewish context.
Another problem with the “divorce-but-not-remarry” view is that the exception isn’t
really much of an exception. A divorcing man may be doing wrong, but no matter what the
reason for divorce, he is not committing adultery if he doesn’t have sexual union with anyone
else. What sense does it make that Christ would allow for an exception to the rule only
insofar as divorce is concerned and not remarriage? In what way is the divorced-but-single
person committing adultery? Only remarriage makes adultery an issue, and, as we have
noted, legitimate divorce and permission to remarry were presumed by Jewish and Greco-
Roman societies.
Divorce and the “Pauline privilege.” While God hates divorce (Mal 2:16) and while
Scripture generally prohibits it, because of human fallenness, Jesus makes one exception:
When one party in the marriage cheats sexually, the innocent party does not commit the sin
of adultery if, following divorce, he or she remarries. This has been called the “Matthean
exception.”
However, another exception is permitted—namely, for desertion or abandonment. The
apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, addresses a pastoral concern of Gentile (pagan) unbelievers
abandoning their spouses because they had become followers of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 7,
Paul cites Christ’s teaching, reaffirming the general principle: no divorce (1 Cor 7:10). If the
spouse does leave (reason unspecified by Paul), she has only two options: remain unmarried
or be reconciled to her mate. (Of course, if the mate remarries or commits adultery in some
other way, Christ’s teaching comes into play.) Then Paul deals with the problem of an
unconverted mate who wants to permanently leave. Don’t coerce, says the apostle, but let
him go free. We can assume this applies to any mate who is behaving like an unconverted
person, whether or not he is a church member. The majority opinion in Protestant circles has
been that this is a second exception, a ground for legitimate divorce and remarriage:
permanent desertion. This has been called the “Pauline privilege.”
We should not view these two as ad hoc exceptions that emerge due to disparate immoral
circumstances. Rather, sexual infidelity and desertion have in common that they break one or
another component of the marriage covenant rooted in Genesis 2:24: (a) personal allegiance
or loyalty (“leaving and cleaving”) and (b) interpersonal intimacy culminating in sexual
relations (the two becoming “one flesh”). “Unfaithfulness destroys sexual exclusivity;
desertion reneges on the commitment to ‘leave and cleave.’”[11]
Though recognition of the exception for adultery is all but universal, there are many who
do not see desertion as a second exception. The term “is not bound” (1 Cor 7:15 NIV) is
considered by many scholars to be a technical term often used for divorce; therefore, the one
who has been permanently deserted is considered eligible for remarriage. Others hold that
the freedom is simply to remain single, not feeling guilty for failing to hold on to the
departing mate. However, most hold that such “freedom” is hardly true freedom; one did not
need apostolic approval to be deserted. But the interpretation may not be as clear-cut as
Christ’s exception.
If one divorces without legitimate biblical grounds (sexual infidelity or permanent
desertion), how does that person “commit adultery” (Mt 5:32; 19:9)? Is this sin forgivable?
Some have held that if by getting remarried a person commits adultery, it must mean that an
adulterous relationship is entered and continues as long as the marriage continues. Very few
have held this view. Indeed, Jesus’ statement about adultery after remarriage appears to
be hyperbolic.If it were literal adultery, it would either exclude exceptions for divorce (on the
grounds of, say, adultery or desertion), or it would grant equal exemption to the guilty party,
since the guilty party can’t remain literally married to the innocent party if the reverse is not
true. In other words, second or third marriages are not adulterous unions in the sense that we
need to break up those marriages and require those involved in them to return to their
original spouses, if the latter remain available. The point of the hyperbole is to draw our
attention to the point of being absolutely committed to marriage and that divorce, even if
justified, is always a departure from the way God desires every marriage to be.[12]
We saw with polygamy that it would be wrong to require a tribal chieftain to divorce all
wives but his first. Rather, he should remain faithful to this commitment to his wives—
although teaching the next generation about God’s ideal of monogamy. In a parallel way, to
remarry following divorce on nonbiblical grounds is sinful, but to divorce again would
simply be another sin that could not correct the first. The remarried person should remain
married to his second mate. Another analogy is the person who marries an unbeliever. The
believer sins in doing so, but once the marriage is consummated and the two become one
flesh, the marriage is the will of God, and breaking it becomes sinful. And, of course, if the
deserting partner remarries, then that would be yet another reason for the “innocent” party to
remarry.
Some New Testament scholars raise the question: Are sexual infidelity and abandonment
the unexceptional grounds for divorce, beyond which no one should go? Or are they
complementary examples of a marital breach so great that the marriage simply cannot be
salvaged without greater damage done? Could wife-beating, say, be an example of violating
the personal allegiance/loyalty dimension of the marriage covenant? One must take care
here. First, whatever the marital breach, the hope and ideal is for reconciliation where there is
genuine repentance. Second, even where forgiveness may be bestowed for deep marital
violations, the further step of reconciliation may not be achievable because trust has been so
shattered. Third, some biblical scholars would leave open this door for divorce on other, still
quite serious, grounds; however, they would acknowledge that the only two clear-cut
conditions are sexual infidelity and abandonment. In the end, we should be careful about
going beyond what the Scriptures clearly say on these matters, though we recognize that
pastoral decisions on this topic can be challenging and emotionally wrenching.
In summary, then, God’s will is monogamy, and divorce is wrong. If, because of either
partner’s “hardness of heart” (sin), divorce takes place, the believer should remain single. If
adultery or permanent desertion are involved prior to or subsequent to divorce, the one who
did not commit these sins does not necessarily sin by marrying another person. If a person
does commit the sin of adultery (as, for example, in a nonbiblical remarriage) or any other
sin (as, for example, selfish behavior that led a mate to divorce) and truly repents, God will
forgive that person, as should God’s people.
Further Reading
Davidson, Richard. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2007.
Keener, Craig. And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New
Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Keller, Timothy, and Kathy. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of
Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.
Strauss, Mark L., ed. Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2006.
16Nonmarital Violations of God’s Purposes for
Sexuality
Sexual Covetousness
Lust: Mental sexual coveting. We have briefly touched on the topic of lust, but a brief
review is fitting here. The word lust (noun: epithymia; verb: epithymeō) can be translated
“desire” or “covet(ing).” It can refer generally to any fallen desires associated with a world
alienated from God (1 Jn 2:16)—greed, envy, and the like. Sexual lust, of course, includes
imagining having sexual relations outside a marriage relationship. But it can include any
kind of sexual pleasure or satisfaction outside of God’s will. Dwelling on any sexual thought
that would be immoral to act out is sinful lust.
As we said, sexually immoral acts begin in the mind, the primary sex organ. Adultery
begins with dwelling on lustful thoughts, then fantasizing, then lowering one’s sexual guard
with others by engaging in emotional affairs and going beyond. While some will claim that
sexual fantasizing is harmless and private—“just as long as you don’t hurt anyone,” we’re
often told—a corrupted imagination is, in fact, a form of self-harm (see the discussion of
pornography below).
If procreation were the only purpose in human sexuality, if humans were no more than
animals, perhaps fantasizing would be harmless. But God has other purposes in mind for it—
relational and sexual unity, for instance. So a sexually corrupted mind will profoundly affect
marital unity and undermine its intimate, permanent bond—a bond reflecting the unity of
Father, Son and Spirit and expressed in Christ’s love for and union with the church ( Eph 5).
Thus, intimacy must be exclusive. Christ calls everyone to mental purity, and spouses must
be faithful in mind, not simply in body. Mental infidelity erodes marriage; ultimately, sexual
sin is an assault on the image of God and an affront to God himself (Gen 39:9; Ps 51:4).
The author of Genesis recounts that Rachel was “beautiful of form and face” (Gen
29:17). So lust is not the same as recognizing a person’s pleasant appearance. However, a
husband and wife should take care to honor each other and not draw attention to an outsider’s
looks. Further, guarding our eyes and thoughts means making Christ-honoring choices about
what movies to watch and books to read—and protecting our children’s minds as well.
And how we speak about members of the opposite sex is becoming cheapened and
dishonorable (cf. Eph 5:3-4). In our increasingly promiscuous culture, beauty is routinely
downgraded, degraded and demeaned to the language of being “hot,” even among Christians.
Referring to fellow humans as “hot” or “babes” is to objectify them and to reduce them to
sexual objects rather than regarding them as a daughter or son of a father and mother—or as
divine image bearers or as persons for whom Christ died. While such language would be
appropriate within the intimate confines of marriage, it is not fitting to make such sexually
loaded comments outside that setting.
Like appetite for food or drink, one’s sexual appetite can be gratified for a time. And as
with habitual snacking, momentary sexual fantasy does not truly satisfy. It was not designed
to do so, but only stimulates the desire for more. This is what some have called “the law of
diminishing returns.” Once one achieves a certain level of sexual gratification, one is not
satisfied with remaining there, but desires “something more” and then takes it to the next
level—and so it goes on.
Responding to sexual temptation. One ought to take care to cultivate mental purity—not
simply physical purity. Indeed, godliness does not come without the cultivation of godly
habits. We are to discipline ourselves for the purpose of godliness (1 Tim 4:8), to “prepare
[our] minds for action” and “be self-controlled” as we set our hope on Christ ( 1 Pet 1:13).
We have noted how pornography is like a crack addiction, and how this destroys not only
personal integrity but ruins marital intimacy and creates barriers of mistrust and suspicion.
Despite Hollywood inspired illusions and fantasies of personal fulfillment through adulterous
relationships, the reality is one of shattered lives, massive guilt, family upheaval and divorce.
Lust lies at the heart of adultery. When addressing the matter of lust, Jesus exhorts his
disciples to take concrete steps to battle this—to take severe, ruthless action to avoid lustful
activity—to “pluck it out” and “cut it off” (Mt 5:29-30 RSV). This means honest
accountability to others, installing pornography filters on computers (including vigilantly
protecting children from exposure to it), and also directing one’s mind to what is honorable,
just, pure and praiseworthy. Not only should earnest Christians cry to God for deliverance
when tempted (1 Cor 10:13); they should make no provision to feed sexual temptation (Rom
13:14). They should avoid the thing, the person, the place, the activity that sets the stage for
sexual temptation. In fact, as necessary, flee—run from the tempting situation (Gen
39:12; Prov 5:8; 2 Tim 2:22). This includes setting standards and preserving proper
boundaries—for example, a married person not driving alone with someone of the opposite
sex or counseling such a person in a secluded area. Not to take this challenge to discipleship
seriously, Jesus says, results in condemnation (Mt 18:8-9; cf. Mt 5:29-30). As Billy Graham
once said, “Win the battle against sex and you win the battle of your life. Lose it, then you
lose the battle of your life.”
Now, many Christians engage in self-flagellation and wallow in guilt because impure
thoughts come flitting through their mind. But Scripture emphasizes the wrongness of
choosing to dwell on those thoughts, of choosing to lust after another, rather than vigilantly
redirecting those thoughts. The disciple of Christ would avoid much unnecessary guilt if he
asked: “How should I respond to these flitting thoughts? Will I dwell on them, or vigilantly
redirect my mind?” Martin Luther is reputed to have said that you can’t keep birds from
flying around your head, but you can keep them from making a nest in your hair! Temptation
itself is not sin.
To look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery with her in one’s heart, Jesus said (Mt
5:27-28). Again, we emphasize that it is a mistake to assume that lust is “just as bad as
adultery.” This both ignores Scripture and trivializes sin. Jesus is not saying that all sins
are equally sinful; rather, he is saying that lust and adultery—and anger and murder—are
still sin.
Romans 13:14 exhorts us to make no provision for the flesh. Temptation to lust can come
through sight or through touch (Mt 5:28-30). While we have addressed temptation through
sight, we should address sexual temptation through touch. Care must be exercised in
evaluating the potential for temptation in oneself and in others through casual physical
contact with sexually attractive people. Certain forms of social dancing such as square
dancing or other forms of group dancing can be fun and nonarousing. Other forms can be
more intimate and sexually arousing (especially for men); some of them—like “grinding”—
are coarse and crass and should be avoided. To engage in sexually stimulating dancing with
someone other than one’s mate is to “make provision for the flesh,” for oneself and possibly
for one’s dance partner.
Thus we are instructed to deal severely with temptation. This means not only to avoid
temptation, but also to avoid being a temptation to others—including modesty in dress.
Modesty
The teaching of Christ on sexual desire, which we have just considered, is the strongest
teaching on modesty. Lust is sin; an equal wrong is to cause another to sin ( Mt 18:6-7;
also Rom 14:13, 15, 21; 1 Cor 8:9-13). The Christian, therefore, will never deliberately dress
to entice others to sexual desire. And even if someone does not dress with the intention of
arousing or enticing, the effect can be the same if one is inattentive to these matters.
The Bible does not say a great deal about nudity, but there are some clear indications of
God’s purposes for us (Gen 2:25; 3:7-11; 9:22-23; Ex 20:26; 28:42-43). The human body is
not shameful, but beautiful; when God created man and woman he said, “It is good.” And,
we are told, they were naked and not ashamed. But the human body is exclusive, sacred and
private—it belongs to the one other person God has given in marriage (1 Cor 7:3-5). To
unclothe certain parts of the human body is sexually stimulating to members of the opposite
sex. Therefore, when one dresses to induce lust in another person, it is sinful.
But that which is tempting differs from society to society and from era to era. In India,
for example, the calves of a woman’s legs are covered, but not necessarily the midriff. In old
Japan it was the nape of the neck that enticed, and the daring geisha would arrange the collar
of her kimono to expose a bit more of her neck. In certain African tribes the loose woman
wears a bra, and the modest girl goes topless, whereas in a South American tribe it is the
opposite: modest women wear sleeves and tops but no bottoms. The most shameful thing
would be to expose the armpits. Modesty, then, has something to do with culture—how dress
is viewed by a particular people. Biblical modesty is not to be controlled by the surrounding
culture, of course, but it is certainly influenced by it.
To further complicate matters, styles keep changing, at least in the twenty-first-century
Western world. And the changes are not always neutral. A fallen society uses dress, not to
enhance personhood or inner beauty of spirit, but to exploit human weakness for financial
profit. James Laver, the leading authority on the history of dress, attests to this:
But, after a short time . . . excessive concentration on an area brings its own penalty. The
portion of the body in question becomes too familiar; it becomes a bore; or, as the
psychologists say, it “exhausts its erotic capital.” Now the emphasis changes, the zone shifts.
The new zone always seems a little indecent at first. But that emotional impact is the real
reason for the change.
Did they not promote the lust of the eye? Of course they did. That was their object. So
fashion and prudery began the fencing match that has lasted to this day.[1]
The world is constantly seeking to press the Christian into its own sinful mold, and the
modest Christian, aware of this, will not adopt any new style that is ostentatious, drawing
attention to self, or that increases sex appeal, until the style is no longer ostentatious or
stimulating. Rather than join in the vanguard of change, the modest woman (or man) will
wait until the new style has a history long enough so that spiritually mature Christian men (or
women) testify the style no longer need be a temptation to lustful desire.
What of nudity or seminudity in the media and in art? Much of contemporary print and
cinema, photography and TV is designed to be sexually stimulating. A Christian who
participates in producing such art is violating God’s standard of modesty, causing others to
stumble. The unclothed figure in fine art is probably not sexually stimulating to many,
though there are exceptions—some “fine art” is designedly erotic, and some people are more
easily tempted. But whatever one’s judgment on that issue, one point is beyond dispute:
Modeling for such art is not the role of a Christian. The historic record of the moral failure of
artists and their models attests to the incompatibility of nude modeling and purity.
When Paul and Peter speak about women dressing modestly (e.g., 1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3-
4), they are referring to the avoidance of showing off social status with gold, pearls and
costly garments. Of course, the Scriptures condemn seduction and promote wholesome
sexual expression in the context of marriage (Prov 5:15-19; 7:1-27; Is 3:16; etc.). Paul refers
to the body’s “unpresentable parts” that call for “greater modesty” (1 Cor 12:23 RSV), but
this is often disregarded within the Christian community. We have been in church settings
where some women (and no doubt this is true of men as well) wear clothes more suited to a
night club setting—and sometimes this immodesty extends to members of a “praise band” or
“worship team” or to a person doing the “special music.” This only feeds the objectification
of others rather than focusing on inner character and honoring God. Modesty in dress,
beginning in Eden, is God’s wrapping for the wonderful gift of marriage. It is his fence
around the pure mind of the sincere Christian, protecting it for the uninhibited fulfillment of
erotic love in the exclusive intimacy and permanent commitment of marriage.
Pornography
It has been rightly said that the problem with pornography is not that it reveals
too much, but that it reveals too little. All it reveals are objectified body parts for sexual
arousal rather than God’s image bearer—a person’s heart, mind, soul and spirit.
What is pornography? Pornography is the portrayal of sexually oriented material, in
written, audio or visual form, deliberately designed to stimulate sexually. Outside of
marriage this means incitement to lust and therefore deliberate seduction, deliberate
temptation. Sexuality is ripped out of its rightful context of marital love. As we noted about
nudity, what may create sexual arousal in some societies or in certain eras may not in others,
but pornography aims at an audience, most of whom would likely find this communicative
content arousing.[2]
Does pornography actually bring harm to individuals, society and those involved in
producing it? Some claim it frees them from sexual inhibitions. Those in the pornography
industry will claim there is “no causal connection” between pornography and demonstrable
harm to individuals or society. The controversial Presidential Commission on Pornography
appointed in 1967 concluded pornography did not negatively affect youth or adults, thus
recommending that all legal restrictions on pornography be lifted. But the claim that books
and pictures have no influence on reader or viewer is patently false, as any advertising agent
can testify. Indeed, the Attorney General’s 1986 Commission on Pornography reversed
virtually every conclusion of the 1967 commission.[3]
But what does Scripture say to this? Lusting in one’s heart is mental adultery ( Mt 5:28).
We are to lay aside the deeds of darkness, put on the things of Christ, make no provision for
the flesh (Rom 13:12-14). Immorality, impurity, coarse jesting and filthiness are not fitting
and should not be associated with the saints, but rather the giving of thanks ( Eph 5:2-3). It is
disgraceful even to speak of certain things done in secret (Eph 5:12). Our minds should dwell
on what is noble, just, pure, lovely, excellent, of good repute and praiseworthy ( Phil 4:8).
Paul exhorted Timothy to flee youthful lusts and pursue righteousness (2 Tim 2:22). Mental
fidelity is a vital habit to cultivate in a sex-saturated society. It is not mere avoidance activity,
but a positive channeling of our minds in the direction of giving thanks, of putting on Christ,
of pursuing righteousness (Eph 5:3-4).
Clearly, the average person will certainly be influenced to sexual lust by reading or
viewing pornography. After all, that is the intent. Tragically, 90 percent of American children
ages 8–16 are exposed to pornography. In 1998, there were 14 million pornography sites
online; by July 2003, it was 260 million; by the end of 2004, it jumped to 420 million. Today
there are more than 1 billion. Pornography dominates the movies watched in hotel rooms,
and even cell phone pornography is a booming industry.[4] Countries such as Iceland, India
and the UK have taken steps to ban pornography entirely. British Prime Minister David
Cameron said that pornography is “corroding childhood.” So if people want pornography,
they should have to pay for it with a credit card.
What are pornography’s effects on individuals and societies? From a biblical perspective,
no sin is strictly private, and even if pornography were private, it still does damage to the
viewer, and it will stunt one’s spiritual and social growth. Dr. Judith Reisman, who has
dedicated herself to studying the social impact of pornography, notes how viewing
pornography acts as an addictive drug; exposure to it triggers endorphins and testosterone,
creating addictions comparable to crack cocaine or heroin. Viewing pornography produces
sexual frustration, arousing the emotional and physical conditions for intercourse but without
the ability to properly fulfill them.[5]
As we observed earlier, pornography objectifies humans made in God’s image; it
degrades them. Exposure to pornography diminishes the capacity for wholesome
relationships with the opposite sex. The relationship of husband and wife or with a future
mate is damaged by every thought that undermines the unity of the two. In fact, thought
often does lead to action, and no immoral act ever came from any place but the thought in
someone’s mind. As we noted, the physical act of adultery begins to take shape in the so-
called private sphere of the mind. Not only is the marriage partner affected because of a
diminished marital bond with the invasion into their exclusive intimacy. It also affects the
children, who must live under the leadership of an impure, cheating parent. In fact, in the
case of Christians, everyone they touch will be affected by their loss of integrity as a true
reflection of Christ and by the consequent loss of personal spiritual power.
There is another victim of pornography who is not often considered: the subject of the
photography or live production and the writer of pornography. There has been a steady
outcry against the use of children in pornography, and in Denmark the humane society
decries the increasing use of animals in portraying bestiality, but adults are considered free
agents and not victims at all. True, feminists decry the woman’s role in pornography, but not
so much the brutalizing effect on the performer as the demeaning of the woman’s role. This
subjugation of women is indeed the normal fare of pornography. Little is said of the
degrading effect on the performer. And yet the model, the performer, the writer and all who
participate in the production and distribution of pornography are sinning and causing others
to sin.
Beyond these personal relationships, however, many are concerned with the impact of
pornography on society at large. The Heritage Foundation’s Jill Manning presented to the US
Senate the following documented influences of pornography: increased marital distress;
increased risk of separation and divorce; diminished intimacy and sexual satisfaction in
marriage; adultery; increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual
activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices; devaluation of monogamy,
marriage and child rearing; increased numbers of people struggling with compulsive and
addictive sexual behavior; less time and attention given to children (who themselves may be
at risk of encountering pornographic materials); parental separation and divorce; and more
likely parental job loss and financial strain. Children or adolescents exposed to pornography
will experience long-term negative, addictive emotional responses that will, for starters,
encourage earlier sexual experimentation and a mindset that optimal sex can be experienced
without affection for one’s partner and detached from any thought of family life.
Pornography affects wholesome relationships with the opposite sex. Pornography devastates,
wrecking individual lives, marriages, families, and, ultimately, society.[6]
What can be done on a wider level? The Heritage Foundation makes these suggestions
for a responsible approach to the dangers of pornography:
•
Educating the public about the risks of pornography consumption
•
Supporting research that examines aspects of Internet pornography currently
unknown
•
Allocating resources to enforce laws already in place, and lastly,
•
Legally implementing technological solutions that separate Internet content, allowing
consumers to choose the type of legal content they wish to have access to.[7]
Pornography, along with various forms of “virtual sex” through the Internet and even cell
phones, is sleazy and cheap, trying to fulfill real God-given sexual desires in a virtual world
without the warmth of human love and commitment. Pornography destroys spiritually all
who involve themselves in producing or using it, and its corrupting influence spills over into
the entire life of the society that tolerates it. The good news is that in the gospel, Christ offers
grace, forgiveness and deliverance from guilt and shame and bondage; he provides us with
spiritual resources—his Spirit, prayer and Scripture, the Christian community and the
spiritual disciplines to help loosen sin’s hold on us.
Sex education in schools. Sex education for children in the public school is definitely not
designed to stimulate sexually, at least not by most responsible sex educators. Some “sex ed”
curricula are designed to help students “create” their own set of fulfilling sexual values—
along with avoiding unwanted pregnancy, venereal disease, AIDS and sexual violence.
Others are more explicit in their attempt to reshape society’s values and to rid it of Judeo-
Christian ethics, including promoting homosexuality and gay marriage as equally desirable
options to traditional marriage. An important question is, “Who will be ‘educating’ my
children about sexual matters?” The sad truth is that no more than 10 percent of Christian
parents even attempt to provide this kind of guidance for their children. If Christian parents
and the church do not give guidance to the children entrusted to them, is it any wonder
professing Christians lack sexual clarity and conviction? The church and Christian youth
leaders should work together with involved parents to communicate the biblical message
about marriage and sexuality to the next generation. Instruction about sex should first take
place in the context of the home, where a loving marriage is modeled and where discussion
and inquiry naturally unfold.
The Christian cannot escape the values debate. There can be no value-free or judgment-
free sex education. Human sexuality, unlike mathematics, physics or English grammar,
cannot be separated from a biblical view of human sexuality. Sex without love is far from sex
within the context of permanent commitment in a monogamous marriage. To teach sex
without teaching about monogamous, committed marriage is inherently socially subversive
and ultimately counterproductive.
Sex education within public schools—no matter how scientifically informed—
will typically portray sex without commitment, detached from the context of marriage, and
open to “alternative” expressions of sexuality. Of course, the ideal is to have the technical
knowledge and the commitment, along with the biblical knowledge of what sex is all about.
Parents should be vigilant for their children’s sexual purity, and they should be informed
about what public schools are teaching. It is safest to simply withdraw one’s child from this
time of sex education “instruction” in place of an alternate topic and learning activity. Many
public schools allow for this, although others are more strident about indoctrination,
especially in urban areas; in this case, Christian parents may need to address these issues at
an administrative level in order to press for more just educational alternatives in a pluralistic
setting.
Masturbation.It is said that 90 percent of all males over age fifteen have experienced
some form of self-induced orgasm at least once. Many masturbate regularly. Among females
the estimates range from 40 to 60 percent who have had at least one erotic experience
through self-stimulation. There is no demonstrated biological drive for release on the part of
the female, but the male experiences a buildup of sperm until some form of ejaculation
becomes biologically necessary in most males. This release can come consciously through
sexual relations with another person, it can be self-induced, or it can come unconsciously in
an emission during sleep, often accompanied by a dream. Incidentally, the Mosaic law
matter-of-factly mentions nocturnal emissions (Deut 23:10); in fact, both seminal emissions
and menstruation—though natural and recurring—still required ceremonial cleansing. Both
these discharges represented what was “outside” the wholeness of the human body—just as
unclean foods entering the body would symbolically pollute or defile. For the Israelites,
vaginal blood and semen were powerful symbols of life, but their loss symbolized death. To
lose one of these life-fluids represented moving in the direction of death.[8]
As for masturbation, Scripture does not mention this specifically. Now, a sexually
permissive and sex-promoting society may increase the incidence of masturbation, but it is
common in all societies. What, then, do Christians say to the questions that arise so
insistently?
Historically, most churches have spoken against masturbation. Many myths have spread
concerning adverse physical results of masturbation, but these have all been discredited on
scientific investigation in recent decades. Nevertheless, either because it is wrong and the
conscience, knowing this, brings condemnation, or because churches or society have spoken
against it as wrong, the most common response still seems to be a sense of guilt or shame
about the practice. But in recent years a number of Christian marriage counselors have
followed the lead of secular psychologists in condoning or advocating masturbation.
There seem to be four viewpoints among Christians who speak to this issue:
•
Masturbation is a gift of God.
•
It is probably all right if it is not indulged in with lustful fantasies, is not compulsive,
is not performed in a group, and does not produce guilt.
•
It is probably wrong because it is against nature and may be in violation of the
biblical law of purity.
•
It is certainly wrong.
Until the last half of the twentieth century, the church held that masturbation is certainly
wrong, and though there are no statistics to validate this judgment, it is likely that most
evangelicals adhere to this position or to the position that it is probably wrong. Since both
positions lean on the same arguments, let us combine the two positions.
The Bible does not speak directly to this issue—just as it does not speak directly to
questions we hold to be moral—pornography, drug abuse, abortion. The Bible may not speak
to this particular issue—not surprisingly—because young people were married much earlier
and reached sexual maturity later than today. Thus, in ancient Jewish society temptation to
masturbation was greatly reduced. It is our early sexual maturity, coupled with a later age of
marriage, that creates the pressure to find alternate sexual outlets. In any event, the argument
from silence is notoriously inconclusive. Rather, we should ask, does Scripture hold us to any
principles that would preclude autoeroticism?
Christ indicated the beginning of sexual sin (mental sexual desire) and Moses gave the
ending (sexual intercourse with a person other than one’s marriage partner), so that any form
of sexual activity in between would seem to be included. Since most masturbation is
connected with sexual fantasy or imagination, that form of it, at least, is wrong. Even when
this is not so, 1 Corinthians 7:4 gives the clear principle that one’s body does not belong to
oneself but to one’s partner so far as sexual activity is concerned. Or, more broadly, our
bodies are not meant for sexual immorality but are temples of the Spirit; we have been
bought with a price; therefore we should glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 19-20).
Furthermore, self-stimulation, at least apart from sexual play in marriage, violates two
and probably all three of God’s purposes in marriage. The first purpose of marriage is
oneness; sex was designed to cement and promote that oneness. Masturbation runs in the
opposite direction. It is (pseudo-)sex stripped of love, commitment and all the purposes for
which sex was created. Rather than uniting with another for mutual fulfillment, it is typically
pure self-centeredness. The second purpose of marriage is procreation, and, needless to say,
masturbation does not promote that. In fact, it is advocated by some as an excellent form of
population control. The third purpose of marriage, reflecting the image of God, would also
seem to be violated since the self-induced sex act is by definition isolated from one’s rightful
partner and self-oriented.
While we recognize that we cannot make an absolute case for forbidding the practice, it
seems clear to us that one cannot make a solid case for condoning it. One thing is clear:
“Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), and if one does not have a solid conviction
of God’s approval, one does not have freedom to engage in it.
We have already discussed dealing with sexual desire in part four (“Virtues and Vices”).
As for male sexual release, the involuntary nocturnal emission is a natural release valve. As
such, there are no grounds whatsoever for guilty feelings. One must keep in mind that when
erotic dreams accompany the emission, they may be related to overexposure to sexual
stimulation during conscious hours.
What of female release? Let it be emphasized that in the case of the female there is no
proven biological pressure, so that if there is any pressure other than the desire for pleasuring
oneself, it is psychological. But the reason urged for the inevitability (and thus the rightness)
of ejaculation in the male can reasonably apply only to the male.
Then there is another way of release for both male and female: sublimation—that is,
diverting or channeling one’s sexual energies in other constructive, life-giving directions. Of
course, this includes right thinking about who we are—namely, embodied, sexual beings—as
opposed to the “gnostic” view that we are simply souls that can exist independently of bodily
desires and impulses. This sublimation also takes seriously the place of God’s grace and
forgiveness, the place of deep worship and the safety of Christian community. The
intentional redirecting of our energies can include physical exercise, creative hobbies, mental
stimulation, reading literature and engaging in volunteer groups and activities.
Sex Before Marriage
Though the violation of God’s wonderful purposes for sex begins in the mind, it does not
ordinarily end there—sex was never intended to be merely imaginary, but to be enacted. The
greatest emphasis in biblical teaching on sexual impurity concerns behavior. Furthermore, it
soon becomes clear that violation of God’s purposes for marriage can take place prior to
marriage. What, then, is God’s standard of conduct in sexual relationships for the single
person? Is sex before marriage biblically permissible?
The biblical evidence. It is not unusual to hear the objection that, yes, the Bible
condemns adultery (married persons having sex outside the marriage bond), but it does not
condemn premarital sex. This is a serious misreading of Scripture.
In biblical terms, a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves or binds himself to his wife,
and then the two become sexually united as “one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Both in the Old and New
Testaments, virginity is the proper expectation before marriage. The law of Moses expresses
this: “I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin” ( Deut 22:14).
The broader context of Deuteronomy 22:13-29 is that if there is premarital sex, it must lead
to marriage. In the case of Exodus 22:16, we see the seduction of an unengaged girl; this
scenario involves the girl’s consent—not forcible rape (as in Deut 22:28); this would be
called “statutory rape,” in today’s terms. The assumption given this “statutory rape” situation
is that premarital sex is out of place and that marriage should be pursued, assuming this is
agreed to by the girl and her father.[9]
In the New Testament, the same assumption is made. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says that it
is better to marry—not “live together” or “cohabit”—than to burn with sexual passion. Paul
urges marriage for sexual “burning” (1 Cor 7:8-9, 36-38); he does not endorse some “right”
to sexual release through intercourse. Later, Paul writes to the Corinthians: “For I am jealous
for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might
present you as a pure virgin” (2 Cor 11:2). Again, sexual fidelity before marriage is
presumed. The general New Testament terms “sexual immorality” and “sexually immoral”
(porneia, pornē) assume that sexual activity outside of marriage is illicit sex (Acts 15:20; 1
Cor 6:9, 13, 18; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3).
The scientific evidence.Sexual relationships before marriage damage the fulfillment of
God’s purposes in marriage. In our utilitarian culture, living together first is a way to “test
the waters”—to “try before you buy.” Not surprisingly, there is a correlation between
cohabitation and lower marital satisfaction, far greater likelihood of divorce, weaker
commitment to a permanent relationship, weaker marital adjustment, and no greater
knowledge of one’s partner. Indeed, sexually active teenagers are at psychological risk, as
they are more prone to alcohol abuse, illegal drugs and problems in school, while sexually
active girls specifically tend to be depressed and are more likely to attempt suicide than those
who are not.[10]
Sociologist Dr. Nancy Moore Clatworthy conducted research at Ohio State University
and its surrounding community. She was stunned by the differences of those who lived
together before marriage and those who went straight to the altar.[11] She was asked, “But
doesn’t living together before marriage help to iron out some of the disagreements that every
marriage inevitably must face?” Clatworthy responded that when it came to finances,
household matters, recreation, demonstration of affection, and friends, those who had
cohabited disagreed more often than those who hadn’t. And what about trying to determine
“sexual compatibility”? Clatworthy replied that this is what surprised her most: “Couples
who had lived together before marriage disagreed about it more often.”
Furthermore, those who had lived together and then married also faced greater challenges
in the areas of adjustment, happiness and respect. And those who hadn’t lived together, for
example, “showed a much higher degree of respect than those who had.” As for personal
happiness, the only people who checked the “extremely unhappy” answer were the ones who
lived together before marriage. None of the married-firsts checked that answer. Now this
obviously doesn’t mean that all married-firsts will be happy and those who live together will
never be, but this certainly makes a strong statement against living together first.
What about security versus feeling suspicious? In response to the survey question, “How
often do you fantasize breaking off your relationships with your spouse?” Clatworthy noted
that none of those who had married first selected the choice “often.” Only those who had
previously cohabited marked “often.” This isn’t surprising since cohabitation lacks total
commitment and trust (which marriage entails); so how could one partner rightfully protest
the other’s sexual involvements elsewhere? Clatworthy found that girls are especially
vulnerable and less secure because the male (who typically moves in with a girl) can pick up
and leave at any time.
Noted historian Arnold Toynbee observed that nineteen out of twenty-one notable
civilizations perished not from conquest but from decay within.[12]Cambridge historian, J. D.
Unwin studied eighty civilizations ranging over four thousand years and concluded: “Any
human society is free to choose either to display great energy, or to enjoy sexual freedom; the
evidence is that they cannot do both for more than one generation.”[13]
As a twentieth-century example, consider the Soviet Union. Pitirim Sorokin,
distinguished sociologist and professor at Harvard, in 1956 published the influential
volume The American Sex Revolution. Before coming to America he was professor of
sociology at the University of St. Petersburg in Russia. He wrote:
During the first stage of the Revolution, its leaders deliberately attempted to destroy
marriage and the family. Free love was glorified by the official “glass of water” theory. If a
person is thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterial what glass he uses when satisfying
his thirst; it is equally unimportant how he satisfies his sex hunger.
The legal distinction between marriage and casual sexual intercourse was abolished. The
Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females for the satisfaction of
their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, a year, a month, a week, or even for
a single night. One could marry and divorce as many times as desired. Husband or wife
could obtain a divorce without the other being notified. It was not even necessary that
marriage be registered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the new
provisions. . . . Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relations were considered
normal.
Within a few years, hordes of wild, homeless children became a menace to the Soviet
Union. Millions of lives, especially of young girls, were wrecked; divorces skyrocketed, as
did abortions. The hatreds and conflicts among polygamous and polyandrous mates rapidly
mounted—and so did psychoneuroses.[14]
In Scripture, the apostle Paul points out that sex is a profoundly unitive act (“one flesh”)
—even with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:17). But sex without commitment is a moral charade; it is
an outrageous distortion of reality to become naked with each other in body but not in soul.
To experience physical intimacy without emotional and spiritual closeness undermines
relational intimacy. And of course, children born into such a union do not have the glue of
lifelong parental commitment, and they end up being damaged as a result, as separation of
the cohabitants is more likely once children enter the picture. It is a cruel experiment to “test
the waters” in cohabitation when the well-being of these little ones hangs in the balance—let
alone the psychological and relational well-being of the couple.[15] Even if the couple does
marry, they carry into their marriage the patterns set before marriage. The late Austrian
pastor and counselor Walter Trobisch wrote,
When I as a pastor am called in to counsel in a marriage crisis, I can almost always trace the
origin of the problems to the kind of life which the husband and wife lived before they were
married. The young man who has not learned self-control before marriage will not have it
during marriage. . . . In a sense, you deprive your future wife of something, even if you do
not yet know her, and you endanger your happiness together.[16]
Trobisch wrote that premarital sex is like picking blossoms in the spring: the great joy of
eating the ripened fruit in the late summer is no longer possible. Indeed, Scripture, statistics
and history testify that the way of sexual self-control is the way of fulfillment for the
unmarried. But in a society where the customary relationship between teenage boys and girls
is a socially enforced, exclusive, private, personal relationship, how does one pursue the
ultimate goal intended by God? We look at the topic of courtship and dating in the next
chapter.
Miscellaneous Sexual Issues
There are some remaining sexual issues and questions to address—incest, pedophilia,
bestiality, rape, transsexuality and hermaphroditism.
Incest. Since marriage is the proper context for sexual activity, sex between family
members other than man and wife is prohibited by God. Marriages between blood relatives
was directly forbidden in Israelite law (cf. Lev 18:1-17), and Paul calls for church discipline
in the case of a professing believer in an incestuous relationship with a stepmother.[17] Incest
involving father and children is particularly disturbing because it violates God’s direct charge
to fathers (Eph 6:4) and can distort a child’s perception of the heavenly Father.
The extent of sexual abuse in the home is alarming. According to 2010 statistics, one in
five girls is sexually abused; for boys, it is one in twenty. Of child sexual-abuse cases, most
are intrafamilial. In another survey, three out of four adolescents were sexually abused by
persons they knew well. This act involves coercion and control, and it harms children,
leading to psychological damage and sexual promiscuity involving multiple partners.
[18] Incest is a horrid sin, an indictment on the church if committed by Christians because
today, as in New Testament times, it is a practice abhorrent even to unbelievers (1 Cor 5:1-8).
Pedophilia.Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. This desire and even
sex acts between adults and minors—the “final taboo,” as it’s been called—is becoming
increasingly mainstreamed. Seminars for continuing education credit are being offered by
groups like B4U-ACT affirming that pedophiles can be psychologically healthy and well--
adjusted.[19] The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), while
condemning sexual abuse and coercion, supports “the rights of youth as well as adults to
choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.”[20] In a double
issue of the Journal of Homosexuality (devoted to adult-child sex), one author approvingly
refers to “social workers achieving miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents
—not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them.” This “did far more good than years
in reformatories.”[21] To make matters worse, the American Psychological Association (in
its Psychological Bulletin) no longer views pedophilia as harmful.[22] There is even a (Dutch)
journal, Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia, whose premier issue began with the editorial
acknowledgment: “The starting point of Paedika is necessarily our consciousness of
ourselves as paedophiles.”[23]
Pedophiles desire to give “love” to a child as they wish they had been loved at that child’s
age. Often, pedophiles have grown up in homes of neglect and abuse—emotionally,
physically or sexually. Unable to soothe themselves, they desire to comfort and love another
with the comfort they desired as prepubescent children, and this “love” becomes sexualized.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to help pedophiles since they do not believe they are harming the
child or that their desire is abnormal, though they may not act on this desire for fear of
getting into trouble. To find help, pedophiles must first recognize that theirs is a disordered,
distorted attempt at “love.” Turning to God in repentance, letting go of past hurts from being
sinned against, and finding support and counsel within the Christian community and even
professional help will be part of the healing process.[24] Rather than seeing pedophilia as a
fallen, distorted desire that, when acted on, can permanently damage a child’s sexuality,
many today are mainstreaming pedophilia as “normal,” making sexual wholeness all the
more elusive.
Bestiality. Likewise, bestiality is increasingly “normalized.” Peter Singer, who opposes
the Judeo-Christian tradition and the doctrine of the image of God in humans, argues that
bestiality is morally permissible since humans are just “great apes.” Recognizing this will
lead to bestiality’s no longer being “an offence to our status and dignity as human
beings.”[25] So, if three-dimensional sex is reduced to one, the physical, so that orgasm is the
primary object of sex, why not “have fun” with an animal?
This subject is still taboo to some, but bestiality had been legalized in places like Sweden
and Germany, though animal-rights groups have challenged and helped reverse this
legislation on the grounds that animals cannot freely consent. According to Scripture,
bestiality is just one degree on the downward spiral to ever lessening fulfillment and
increasing destruction. Scripture is categorical in its condemnation of bestiality (Ex
22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15-16; Deut 27:21)—unlike Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors,
which permitted it. In the Canaanite pantheon of gods and goddesses, Baal not only engages
in incest/rape with his sister Anat, but he has sex with a heifer, which gives birth to a son.
As with incest and pedophilia, when sex is divorced from emotional and spiritual union
in committed monogamous marriage, it cannot deliver on its promise of unending and
growing fulfillment and ecstasy. Therefore, it needs to be hyped by the titillation of new
physical experiences.
Rape. A horrific tragedy all too common in some Muslim cultures is “honor killings.”
That is, fathers or brothers murder or severely punish their daughters or sisters after they are
raped. Even though these women were helpless victims, they allegedly bring shame on the
family name and are thus worthy of punishment. Not uncommonly, the perpetrators serve
lighter sentences or simply get off scot-free.
Two issues in regard to the rape of women need to be addressed: the role of the woman
and the nature of the crime. Although women often have a sense of guilt following rape, and
although law enforcement officials and courtroom treatment often reinforce the sense of
pollution and guilt, the victims of forced sexual intercourse are not guilty. If a woman is
guilty of making herself vulnerable by carelessly exposing herself to danger, she is still not
guilty of anything but poor judgment. If she deliberately entices through dressing
provocatively or flirting and then refuses the advances of some man to whom she gave false
signals, she is guilty of deliberately tempting another to sin, but still she is not guilty of
fornication or adultery. The same innocence is true also of the homosexual rape victim and
children sexually abused by family members. While there is no guilt for these victims, there
is shame—something Tamar felt after she had been violated by her half-brother Amnon (2
Sam 13).
A great shift in scholarly opinion and public perception about rape is taking place. The
traditional notion that rape is primarily the passionate response of a sex-starved man has
been challenged. The sex drive is still involved, though. Typically, rapists attack women of
childbearing age—though in 3 to 8 percent of the cases, males are homosexually raped.
[26] However, the lack of sexual expression—that is, sexual frustration—is not at its root.
Some studies have shown that rapists may be married and sexually active with their wives or,
more often, unmarried but still sexually involved with others. One book, A Natural History
of Rape, offers an evolutionary account of rape. It occurs when a male cannot find a mate
and, because of his subconscious (genetic) drive to survive and reproduce, he forces himself
on a female.
Why do men rape? While the biological drive and sexual urge are part of the equation,
some may pin the problem on mental illness and a twisted sexual identity, perhaps as the
result of sexual abuse in the home or a violent father. While we do not deny these factors of
sexual drive and serious family dysfunction, to reduce the “cause” of rape to these factors
renders rapists victims—like many do for the sinful habit of drunkenness. Sicknesses need a
doctor’s attention, not repentance and moral or spiritual transformation.
Further, despite protestations that pornography does not contribute to feeding the
fantasies of the rapist, the statistics say something else—assuming the crime books have not
been “cooked,” which is increasingly common. For example, in one study of 155 convicted
child pornographers, 85 percent of them later confessed to sexually molesting 1,777 young
victims.[27] Whereas rapists could be capitally executed in the 1950s, today sex crimes are
portrayed as less heinous, and sentences are increasingly light, no doubt due to the fixation
on sex as a right in our society.
Rape is not merely a matter of violence, hostility or power-abuse. Obviously there must
be some strong connection between some men’s sex drive and their desire to rape a woman
(or man or child). For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on two studies in
the mid-1980s. In one study of incarcerated rapists, it was clear that they exhibited “serious
deficiencies in assertiveness and social perception.” By contrast, sexually aggressive college
males who engaged in date rape showed no such deficiency. As it turns out, “sexual
aggression is most likely to occur when the man pays for and drives his date, when the
victim or rapist is extremely intoxicated, and when the couple spends time in a secluded
location, especially in a parked car . . . not on their first date with the person who raped them,
but on their fourth or fifth.”[28]
In other words, in the many cases of forced intercourse, the offense appears to be
primarily a crime of sexual passion. It can be combined with violence or power, as when
soldiers in wartime may rape women to demonstrate dominance over them—not to mention
degrading and showing contempt for their male counterparts. So, given the sexually tempting
situation, the man is not on guard against the passion that—at times combined with
drunkenness—can often lead to forcing his way on a weaker person. That said, a woman is
also accountable for her actions; she must not deliberately tempt by dressing provocatively or
acting flirtatiously.
The state has an obligation to enforce harsh penalties on rapists as well as uphold the
dignity of the victim. The state, in conjunction with its citizens, should create a culture that
removes the stigma of rape or refuses to downplay rape as anything less than a gross
violation of a vulnerable human being. The church has a responsibility to help the victim of
sexual assault through the terrifying crisis and the slow and painful process of healing.
Transsexuality. The International Bill of Gender Rights insists that persons have a right
to (re)define their sexual identity. This includes sex reassignment surgery for those who feel
“trapped” in the “wrong” body. Yet can we truly separate our personhood from our sex? Who
I am and what sex I am go together.
One of my (Paul’s) friends was teaching a philosophy class. He showed a video clip of a
man who wanted surgery to remove a leg because he felt like “a one-legged man trapped
inside a two-legged man’s body.” The professor asked the class if he should have his leg
amputated. The class thought this ludicrous and that the problem was in the
man’s mind. Interestingly, they knew how the body ought to function, that it had a certain
purpose or goal, and that this normal-sounding idea was not an idea socially constructed by
human bipeds. Then the professor asked, “So what do we do with a woman who claims she
is a man trapped inside a woman’s body?” The class was silent.
We raise the chicken-and-egg question. Is the problem the “wrong” body, or a damaged
mind or soul? Does the body need adjusting, or does the thinking? Talk of a man’s being
“trapped inside a woman’s body” (or vice versa) ignores very clear bodily realities and their
purposes. Yes, hormonal imbalances can also contribute to the confusion, but very clear
bodily realities should serve as anchor points and indicators of how to reorient confused
sexual identity. As the doctrine of bodily resurrection reminds us, our bodies are integral to
who we are.
Furthermore, our bodies are not our own; they are a gift from God and, for the believer,
the temple of God’s Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). So in rejecting our God-given body/sex, we do not
merely reject the body we happened to receive from our parents; we reject a gift from God.
By what authority would a sex-change be justified? Typically, it is one’s own feelings(“I
feel; therefore I am”). So the man who “feels like a female” is therefore justified in going
through with the drastic operation. The reality, however, is that any such operation is actually
anti-creational; it produces a body incapable of procreation. In other words, we cannot
change the created order. Our sexual identity is not up to us to decide. In trying to find
ourselves, we may actually lose ourselves. Indeed, the fact that so many transvestites remain
deeply unsatisfied with their sex-change operations should serve as a caution against such a
procedure, hopefully prompting them to address the deep hurts and traumas of childhood
experiences.[29]
While the genetic/biological aspect of sex is generally quite clear (though see comments
on hermaphroditism below), one can experience gender confusion as a result of
dysfunctional family or other social environments. This can result in same-sex attraction or
feeling one possesses the “wrong” body. A commonly accepted view in today’s society is that
sexual identity is simply a social construct and not something given at birth. But if this is the
case, then why all the fuss about, say, women’s rights? Why press this if there is nothing
intrinsic to or distinctive about being a woman?
Another cultural irony is this: we’re told we can readily change our sexual identity by
having a sex-change operation; biology can be altered to fit one’s psychological frame of
mind. However, as we saw above, those struggling with same-sex attraction are told that they
can’t ever change, that they were born gay: biology/genetics determines inner awareness of
sexual identity.
Then we have yet another irony: “reassignment” surgery turns out to be the “luck” of
historical circumstances—a medical procedure only recently available. Up until recently,
“changing one’s sex” was not possible, and people were more likely to grapple with the
internal problem. Humans can now create themselves in their own image—the image of
one’s supposed real self.[30]And although we can’t go into the topic in depth here, much of
what we’ve said applies to cross-dressing as well: the solution is not, for a man, putting on a
lady’s high heels but coming to grips with problems and dysfunctions of the past.[31] Let us
simply say that this version of sexual confusion (i.e., transvestism), which is more common
in men than women, stems from an over-identification with the opposite-sex parent. Before
the child reaches the age of gender identity, detachment from this parent feels like a profound
abandonment. So the child desperately clings to objects such as the parent’s clothing that
serve as a “representational object,” which becomes fetish-like.[32]
Hermaphroditism. In contrast to this inner, psychological condition surrounding
transsexualism (or cross-dressing), a hermaphrodite—or “intersexed” person—experiences a
very rare biological deformity, possessing both male and female sexual organs.
Hermaphroditism no more implies that normative sexual definitions are called into question
than congenital blindness calls into question the proper function of sight. Again, “true”
hermaphrodites are rare. Even so, genetics determines sexuality, even if partially formed
male and female sexual organs appear on one’s body. There are cases of “pseudo” male and
female hermaphroditism, in which maleness and femaleness are distinct—even though, say, a
male may develop breast tissue due to an excessive production of estrogen. Both this and
“true” hermaphroditism are biological aberrations that can be medically corrected.
We have looked at deviations from God’s purposes in sexuality—purposes that are to be
fulfilled within the context and safety of marital commitment. Having discussed these
miscellaneous sexual topics (in addition to the biological condition of hermaphroditism), in
the next chapter we continue our discussion of marriage, focusing on dating, romance and
engagement.
Further Reading
Davidson, Richard. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2007.
Keller, Timothy, and Kathy. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of
Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.
Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are
Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. New York: Random House, 2001.
17Romance, Dating and Engagement
Dating
Scripture makes no mention of dating. Different societies have different ways of selecting
mates, and the Bible does not authorize one way as better than another. Each must be
evaluated on the basis of how well it promotes the purposes God has in marriage.
In the Western world romantic love is the basis for marriage; young persons are expected
to find their mate through the dating process. However, in many cultures finding a mate is a
family affair with investigations, negotiations and contracts. There are, no doubt, advantages
and disadvantages in both the romantic, companionship marriage in Western society and the
rational, pragmatic and contractual marriage in other cultures. American young people do not
often act rationally. Many of them take more care in buying a car than they do in seeking a
compatible life partner. And marriage is such a weighty matter that the advice of godly,
loving family and friends should be seriously considered. In a very real sense, a person
marries a family, not simply another individual.
On the other hand, many of the family arranged, contractual marriages altogether ignore
love and the will of the couple, especially the woman. Where there is little or no emphasis in
the culture on developing a loving relationship, this is not usually considered part of the
marriage and thus two of the three reasons for marriage are damaged or destroyed.
Neither pattern can be said to be intrinsically “right” or “wrong.” In Genesis 24 Isaac and
Rebekah were joined through family arrangement. In Genesis 29 Jacob and Rachel actually
made a romantically based personal choice (though the permission of Rachel’s family was
required). Whichever method or combination of methods is used, great care must be given to
be sure all three purposes of marriage are adequately prepared for.
In the dating system there are both advantages and disadvantages for fulfilling the three
basic purposes of marriage. Advantages of this system might be the screening of potential
mates before entering into serious engagement and the sense of security or “belonging” one
can feel. There are some disadvantages too. If steady dating is begun too early and continued
too rigidly, short-circuiting the development of friendship is likely—and friendship should be
the building block for growth in romance later on; there is also the tendency to become
attached prematurely without wider exposure to the opposite sex (just think of couples
pairing up during university freshman orientation); and the greatest danger is the constant
temptation of physical and emotional intimacy. As we have seen, intimacy without
commitment is an outrage and a contradiction. A person who becomes totally physically
vulnerable outside the context of committed love in marriage is saying, “I want you to be
physically vulnerable with me, but I don’t love you enough to marry you.”
Furthermore, if entering and breaking exclusive relationships becomes a pattern during
adolescence, it can be an emotionally poor preparation for marriage—in addition to
increasing sexual temptation. In addition, the system usually leaves all the decision making
to the young person who is emotionally involved and beset by peer pressure with little
significant input from parents or church. Finally, the dating system tends to neglect the
practical realities of sufficient education, motivation, an income-earning track record,
savings, life experience, common interests and the like. However, it can hardly be said that
this pattern is morally wrong, unless morally wrong attitudes or actions develop.
Romance and the dating system. The dating system is not ideal preparation for marriage
because it introduces romantic feelings and sexual impulses as the context in which a person
is to “discover” the other person. Friendship is a much better context for self-discovery and
other-discovery, which encourages objectivity as well as enhances the natural
development of a more exclusive relationship. Today’s “hook-up” culture inverts things,
looking for romance (and possibly sex) first, followed by the pursuit of friendship. This
romantic pursuit often dooms relationships from the start because serious incompatibilities
are not discovered because there has been no friendship or even acquaintanceship stage.
In our culture, the more secure path begins with friendship. This involves getting to know
each other in church, Bible study or other group contexts; in addition, various settings such
as church mission trips, community service projects and opportunities to learn about each
other’s family dynamics afford opportunities to know the other—settings when neither may
be looking or feeling optimal or when the other’s character is more readily revealed. Some
refer to this process as “courtship.”
Unfortunately, when single people go to a party, the tendency is to seek out those to
whom they are physically attracted. While attraction (what some call “chemistry”) is
important in a marriage, one’s more fundamental pursuit should be that of character and
compatibility and like-mindedness. In fact, being on the lookout for attractiveness may
actually derail one’s quest for a suitable marriage partner of good character, wisdom and the
ability to bring up children in a godly manner. And, of course, physical beauty fades over
time (Prov 31:30), and what one is left with is a person’s character—or lack thereof. If, in the
course of things, a man and a woman share the same vision and outlook, they can advance
beyond friendship toward marriage and the safety of sexual intimacy within that context.
Becoming romantically involved early on makes an implicit emotional and relational
commitment; it also raises expectations about physical involvement, all the while bypassing
the cultivation of friendship and the ability to see the other’s character; the dating system can
often exaggerate the other’s strengths and bypass serious weaknesses. Here we can learn
valuable lessons from, yes, the Puritans. As J. I. Packer observes, “The Puritan ethic of
marriage was first to look not for a partner whom you do love passionately at this moment
but rather for one whom you can love steadily as your best friend for life, then to proceed
with God’s help to do just that.”[1] Emphasizing the theme of friendship, Puritan pastor
Richard Baxter advised choosing a partner who is “truly amiable.”[2]
Friendship and dating are not very compatible. Dating is a pointing-to-marriage
arrangement. Friendship, unencumbered by romantic overtones—in the group, in the church,
in the family—is a better context for growing as a person, particularly in the social and
spiritual dimensions. But dating is with us to stay. So we must make the most of it.
Since the primary purpose of marriage is the oneness of two, the opportunity for two to
get acquainted before commitment to a lifelong relationship has potential for good. One can
determine in advance whether there is personal compatibility, an opportunity not available in
cultures where parents make the decision and the couple meets for the first time at the
wedding.
In dating, however, there can be an illusion of confirmed compatibility when actually the
two do not know one another. This is because there are two kinds of static in the atmosphere
of dating that inhibit true and full communication. The first confusing distraction is the
erroneous notion of falling in love. In truth one doesn’t “fall” in love—one grows in it. One
may fall into “desire” very precipitously; one may “fall” into a romantic feeling, an excited
attraction, and call it “love,” but such strong emotional surges are not in themselves the real
thing. True love is other-oriented while what is often called romantic love is self-oriented.
They run in opposite directions. One is interested in giving and the other in getting; one is
preoccupied with the welfare of the other person, the other is primarily concerned with
personal fulfillment. Romantic affection can be part of good, genuine, biblical relationships.
In fact, we never recommend marriage to one who doesn’t have that excitement about the
relationship. But by itself romantic feeling is not the genuine article, not very deep or very
strong—not deep enough to satisfy the human spirit very long, and not strong enough to hold
two people together when the going gets tough, let alone for a lifetime. Yet romantic
attraction gives the illusion that all the ingredients necessary for a happy marriage are
present. Further, “being in love” makes it very difficult to evaluate the other person as a
whole person. As a result of the two illusory feelings of surging affections and sensual desire,
many American young people get married for the wrong reasons.
In addition, our dating system can be tough on both the girl and the guy: traditionally, the
girl has been the one to wait for an invitation, though this is changing, and the guy who
sticks out his neck to ask a girl out runs the risk of rejection. In our culture, guys will often
use love to get sex while girls will often use sex to get love—and so girls more frequently
end up getting used. And psychological and spiritual harm comes to both.
In American society the escalating relationship from casual acquaintance to marriage
usually goes through the following stages: time spent together (dating) leads to emotional
involvement; emotional involvement leads to a feeling of exclusiveness and possessiveness
(becoming an “item”—boyfriend and girlfriend); this mutually shared sense of belonging
exclusively to another person normally leads to intimate talk and behavior. But the sincere
Christian postpones the intimate talk and behavior until lifetime commitment has been made.
A sure sign of maturity is the ability to postpone present gratification for future benefit.
This escalation of relationship is normally accompanied by a rising sexual desire for the
other person. The danger of physical involvement without godly standards is that the couple
does not remain satisfied with “just holding hands” and then “just kissing.” And we have
seen how sex before marriage is clearly a violation of God’s standards for physical intimacy
—standards that are for our well-being. Any attitude or action that lies in the line of rising
desire from initial thought to consummation in sexual intercourse is immoral if it goes
beyond the commensurate degree of mutual commitment (Mt 5:27-30). If the commitment is
not there, expressed and mutually agreed to, then thoughts of sexual intimacy are a form of
unfaithfulness, mental fornication.
“Do not awaken love until it so desires.” In a dating relationship, a person has
responsibility not only for self, but also for the other person. Love, not desire, must direct us.
The pure-hearted, loving person will be careful not to arouse desires in the other person that
he is not prepared to meet through commitment. One should follow the Golden Rule of
dating: “I may marry a person other than the one I’m dating, and somewhere someone may
be dating my future spouse; so I should treat the one I’m presently dating in the very
manner I would want my future spouse to be treated.”
Couples we know who have reserved kissing for engagement or even the day of their
wedding do not regret showing self-control; it only increases respect for each other and
pushes the likelihood of sexual infidelity even further away. On the other hand, you will find
plenty of married couples filled with regret and guilt for going too far physically before the
wedding—and setting negative patterns for married life.
Only in the fullness of a marriage relationship can one experience the highest physical
ecstasy, the deepest satisfaction, the growing fulfillment. If the relationship is only partial—
primarily physical—it not only erodes the wholeness emotionally and spiritually, it makes
the physical itself less satisfying. The relationship God designed is a total one—intimate
identity in all of life.
The godly approach to dating would be to put the physical on hold until the whole-person
relationship has matured to the place of lifetime commitment in marriage. Christian marriage
should involve two mature disciples of Jesus Christ who have learned to be content as single
persons but now come together to serve God as equal partners, as fellow heirs of the grace of
life (1 Pet 3:7). The Christian counselor Larry Crabb has said that many people enter into a
marriage as though it’s a tick-on-a-dog relationship: “My spouse is going to fulfill all my
needs.” The trouble is that in most cases, there are two ticks and no dog! So the most
important matter in preparation for marriage is not to find the right person, but to become the
right person. The more practice one gets in self-giving love in all relationships, in sacrifice to
help others become whole and fulfilled, the more solid a foundation will be laid for a
successful marriage. The more the character is shaped into one of faithfulness, integrity and
loyalty, the greater the assurance of a good marriage.[3]
Through personal experience and in raising teenagers, we suggest two basic guidelines
for dating that spare young people grief and awkwardness. First, don’t date until you are at a
place in life where friendship can naturally develop into a flourishing, exclusive relationship.
This principle virtually eliminates high school and most early college dating, which tends
toward sexual exploitation and experimentation. The second guideline helps enforce and
regulate the first: don’t kiss until you’re engaged—or even the day of the wedding. This is
such a marvelous picture of dedication to purity that friends of our (Copan) family even
made national news because of it.[4] By reserving this door-opening expression of physical
touch, you will be able to develop, maintain, and preserve friendships while keeping your
head clear about whether a person of interest is actually a mutually good fit. As friendship
progresses, unclouded by expressions of physical desire, you will see the person for who she
is. When you ultimately get engaged, have declared your love and kissed, you will have
gathered a treasure trove of mutual trust and respect that you will enjoy and call on
throughout your marriage. If these two standards sound too idealistic, we urge you not to
dismiss them automatically. If you are way past this point in your experience, you can start
again. Determine from this day forward that you will prize purity, honor your future spouse,
and protect your eventual marriage.
Preparation days are to build purity of mind and body into one’s thought life so that when
the time comes, the total giving in a wonderful, exclusive, intimate relationship will be
unsoiled.
Engagement
In the American dating system, there comes a time when a couple may make a
commitment to get married. For the Christian, this is a solemn commitment to a lifelong
relationship. It is the first stage of the marriage vows. The purpose originally was to provide
a legitimate way for a couple to get to know one another, since society prohibited the private
and intimate association of a man and woman who were not committed.
The sexual mores of contemporary society have changed so that dating seems to take the
role once reserved for engagement, and engagement seems to be the trial period for marriage.
But then again, marriage is not held to be much more serious than engagement formerly was
viewed. But for the Christian, engagement is a solemn commitment and may be broken only
for the most weighty reasons. It is better, of course, to break an engagement than to enter a
marriage that was not meant to be, but better yet not to become engaged until one is quite
sure of God’s direction. When an engagement is broken, the trauma for one or both parties is
usually proportionate to the seriousness with which the original commitment was made.
If engagement is indeed a solemn promise, then discretely speaking about sex and
desiring sex with that person can no longer be considered immoral. It is no longer coveting
something that is not rightfully one’s own. So long as both are responsible and sensitive to
the other person’s stage of response, there need be no feeling of guilt. However, the physical
act of sex is not appropriate or honoring to God until they become husband and wife, as we
have discussed. Certainly there would be a sense of shame and awkwardness if a baby
appeared before the nine-month mark after the wedding date. And if one would be ashamed
or embarrassed about this anachronism, this itself serves as an indicator that refraining from
premarital sex is good and right. Failure in self-control before marriage would be the
beginning of considerable strain resulting from guilty feelings, blame and the undermining of
mutual trust before marriage ever begins. But given the strong desire for sexual release
during engagement, it would make sense to keep the length of the engagement as short as
possible—as long as it takes to feasibly plan for a meaningful wedding celebration.
Therefore, it is wise for engaged couples to concentrate on knowing one another socially,
intellectually and spiritually—establishing oneness at these more basic levels. Discipline is
necessary. Physical expression of affection should be simple and occasional rather than
prolonged and often. Otherwise an engagement, particularly a longer engagement, can lead
to temptation, frustration and friction. Gratification delayed builds toward ever more
wonderful fulfillment and the beginning of marriage on a solid foundation with no regrets.
Restoration After Failure
In our sex-saturated society the rate of failure, even among Christians, continues to
escalate. Is there no hope for those who fail? Is the glorious gift prepared by God for the pure
in heart forever out of reach? Though the wages of sin is death-dealing, and the destruction
of the very things grasped for has set in, it is also true that the gift of God is life. Forgiveness
and grace are the great antidotes, and for the truly repentant, healing begins immediately.
Yet experience cannot be undone. One can never have the first experience again. And if
the first experience is morally distorted, the pristine glory God intended for that initial taste
can never be experienced. If the first experience was sinful and was a happy one, the
problem may be even greater, for the memories are even more difficult to efface, and the
shadow stretches long into the future. “The bird with the broken wing may fly again, but
never will fly so high again.”
Some people resent this concept, but it is a basic biblical truth. The result of sin is fully
covered by Christ’s atonement, but some of the results of sin linger on in this life. The
drunkard who lost a limb in his drunken stupor will live with a stump the rest of his life. The
selfish parents who alienated their children before coming to Christ may suffer a lonely old
age. And so with sexual sin: the potential fulfillment has no doubt been reduced.
But forgiveness is real, and cleansing is too. So the failed person must gratefully accept
this and then begin rebuilding a mind that is pure and a will that is trustworthy. If time for
growth is allowed, God in his grace may erase many of the memories and provide a very
fulfilling relationship in marriage.
Does anything need to be done about the past? Does the one who has failed have any
obligation to the prospective mate? Since openness is a prime requisite for a healthy
marriage and secrecy breeds suspicion potentially worse than reality, our judgment is that the
question of the past should be faced before engagement. The person who has had previous
sexual experience needs to ask two questions: Would my friend want to marry me if she knew
of my past? And, could I live openly with a sense of security and integrity if she did not
know? To be sure of the answer to the first, we know of no other way than to ask frankly,
“Do you want to know about my past? Would it make any difference?” Since, in the heat of
romantic desire, people may not even be honest with themselves, let alone with the person
they may want to marry, the immediate answer may not be sufficient evidence of their true
feelings.
If the person seems to want such information (which is rightfully theirs, in any event), we
can recommend giving only the most generalized facts: “Before I knew you, I sinned by
having sexual relationships with another. I am deeply sorry and hope you will forgive me.”
Further detail is probably not wise, but if it is requested, go only as far as is absolutely
necessary to satisfy the loved one that all is past, that nothing of the former relationship
lingers, and that God has so delivered that there will never again be infidelity. If the person
definitely does not want to know, we recommend not speaking of the matter further. Deal
with the Lord about any need you might feel to share. Sexual sins less than premarital sex or
gross promiscuity should be left undisclosed unless specifically requested.
Though Scripture does not speak directly to this issue, it does speak of restitution and
reconciliation. In the nature of the case, no restitution can be made to a future spouse for a
past sexual offense, but full understanding and mutual trust could be advanced by the
approach outlined above. The danger of ignoring the issue before marriage is that it may
become an issue. Sin always has destructive effects. But at least the couple will be able to
deal with the known rather than the unknown, and there can be no charge of deception. And
if a person forgives another for such wrongs, then these wrongs should be left behind and not
brought into the marriage either as a weapon or point of conflict. Puritan Richard Baxter
gave this advice to married men—with relevant application for previous sexual failure or
missteps:
Stir up that most in [your wives] which is best, and stir up not that which is evil; and then the
good will most appear, and the evil will be as buried, and you will easilier [sic] maintain your
love. There is some uncleanness in the best on earth; yet if you will be daily stirring in the
filth, no wonder if you have the annoyance; and for that you may thank yourselves; draw out
the fragrancy [sic] of that which is good and delectable in them, and do not by your own
imprudence or peevishness stir up the worst, and then you shall find that even your faulty
wives will appear more amiable to you.[5]
If full forgiveness is not possible, a far deeper malady than sexual offense is evidenced
and must be dealt with.
Further Reading
Elliot, Elisabeth. Passion and Purity: Learning to Bring Your Love Life Under Christ’s
Control, 2nd ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Revel, 2002.
Keller, Timothy, and Kathy. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of
Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.
Packer, J. I. The Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2010. See chapter 16.
Smedes, Lewis B. Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve. New York:
HarperOne, 2007.
18The Question of Homosexuality
Biblical and Scientific Considerations
Sexual desire toward someone of the same sex and the expression of that desire in genital
sexual activity has been known in most societies throughout recorded history. In the Western
world during the Christian era, homosexual activity has been proscribed by law. This began
to change when the British Parliament in 1967 decriminalized same-sex sexual relations.
Following this, the gay rights movement became more public, spearheading a reversal of
public attitudes toward homosexual behavior—from
mere tolerance to acceptance. Historically, homosexuality was considered sinful and
criminal, later a psychological illness (following Freud’s lead), then a normal alternative
(much like left-handedness), and finally advocated by some as a preferred way of life to
provide the highest form of loving relationships (lesbians) and the best means of population
control (male homosexuals).
The gay lifestyle and gay marriage are receiving increased attention in politics, the news
media and TV shows (The Ellen Show, The New Normal) and movies (Milk, Brokeback
Mountain). Pop singer Lady Gaga celebrates being “born this way,” whether one is “gay,
straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life”—although that last category doesn’t quite fit the
“born this way” theme. Even the online movie outlet Netflix has a “gay and lesbian”
selection. Many orthodox Christians do not quite know how to respond except by citing
Scripture verses. And they face further confusion when edgy, purported spokespersons for
the Christian faith such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell “come out” in favor of gay marriage.
And to add to the challenge, the US Supreme Court rulings in June 2013 allowed gay
marriage to stand in California and also struck down as unconstitutional much of the 1996
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—a defense of the definition of marriage as being between
husband and wife.
Believers must be better equipped to think Christianly about these challenges without
capitulating to the spirit of the age; they must also be prepared to lovingly respond to honest
questions within their families, churches and youth groups; and as fellow broken sinners in
need of God’s grace, they must humbly listen and respond in truth and love to those in the
gay/lesbian lifestyle.
From a theological context, an informal group of Anglican clergy and physicians
produced a report in 1954 that marked a turning point, leading eventually to the Wolfenden
Report and the modification of centuries-old English law. One member of the group, D.
Sherwin Bailey, published the book that has become the foundational study for all later
innovating theological approaches, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition.
[1]Since then studies by church people, church commission reports and church council actions
have almost always kept pace with their secular counterparts and sometimes led the way in
the “gay liberation” and “queer theology” movement. John Boswell was another scholar who
advocated the compatibility of Christianity and homosexuality in his Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980).[1]
In 1968, Troy Perry, an ordained minister with a Pentecostal background, and a professed
evangelical, left his family to form the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles,
which spawned many more churches. Groups such as “Other Sheep” and “Evangelicals
Concerned” affirm that one’s sexual orientation is a gift from God; the latter seeks to provide
“hope, encouragement, teaching and fellowship to women and men seeking to integrate their
faith and sexual orientation.”[3]
We have seen something of the cultural, political and ecclesiastical backdrop. But let us
examine more closely and carefully what Scripture actually affirms, then explore the claim
that homosexuality is simply biological, and finally address the question of gay marriage.
Biblical Considerations
Sy Rogers, a former homosexual and (for one and a half years) transvestite, grew up in an
abusive home and was tormented by his peers. In the midst of his homosexual struggles, he
would pray, “Lord, I have these temptations in my life. . . . I have these desires in my life.
But I want You more.” He eventually married, became a father, and is now a pastor and
popular speaker on the topic of sexual temptation and wholeness.[4]
He tells audiences that when he was a practicing homosexual, “Christians tried to reach
out to me.” However, “they made a classic mistake; they tried to win a moral argument with
me.” Deep down, Rogers knew that acting on his homosexual inclinations was wrong, and he
was aware of what God had to say about it: “I believed in God and His son Jesus Christ, but I
also believed that God hated people like me. I wonder where I picked that up!”[5]
Rogers’s story rightly cautions us against trying to debate the morality of homosexuality
with those immersed in this lifestyle. This can come across as scolding and judgmental.
Rogers’s experience reminds us that while church shouldn’t affirm homosexual activity—or
adultery, idolatry, or greed, for that matter (1 Cor 6:9-10)—it should welcome anyone,
including gays and lesbians, to discover who God is and to find his forgiving grace and
healing.[6] While God loves us as we are, he loves us too much to leave us as we are. And the
church should be the safest place for those struggling with same-sex attraction so that God’s
Spirit can shape them into the image of Christ. Yet, tragically, many professing Christians
have created their own Westernized version of a leper colony known as “the gay
community,” and they can be harder on homosexuals outside the church than they are with
the immorality within the church (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13).[7] Yet Paul reminds former homosexuals
in Corinth of the grace they had received in Christ: “Such were some of you; but you were
washed . . . sanctified . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of
our God” (1 Cor 6:11).
Some who promote a gay lifestyle will claim that Jesus and “the disciple whom Jesus
loved” had a homosexual relationship. And David and Jonathan were gay, and Ruth and
Naomi lesbians. After all, they embrace, kiss, and weep together, and David said that
Jonathan’s love was more wonderful than the love of a woman (2 Sam 1:26). Of course, such
expressions of affection are common in the Middle East today, without any homosexual
connotations. However, Richard Hays calls such stretches “exegetical curiosities” that just
aren’t taken seriously by biblical scholars: these examples “can only be judged pathetic
efforts at constructing [biblical] warrant for homosexual practice where none exists.”[8] Along
these lines, some have suggested that the healed centurion’s “servant” (pais) in Matthew 8:5-
13 (cf. Lk 7:1-10: “slave” [doulos]) was a gay “junior partner.” Now, we have every reason
to think that Jesus would have healed a dying homosexual, but this is beside the point. This
claim hangs on the thinnest of reeds: first, it is an argument from silence; second, it loads the
general term pais (“servant”) with more freight than it was intended to carry; third, the
word pais is used twenty-four times in the New Testament, but without any suggestion of
homosexuality; and fourth, pais could occasionally be a term of endearment without
homosexual implications.[9] The Scriptures offer no indications—no stories, no metaphors—
that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God.
What then are the biblical texts to consider regarding God’s assessment of the practice of
homosexuality? An appropriate text to consider would be Genesis 2:24. The fundamental
understanding of marriage and a one-flesh union has been a husband-wife one-flesh
relationship. Jesus (Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:2-12) and Paul (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Tim 4:3-4) regularly
appeal to God’s design at creation “from the beginning” in order to defend God’s ideal for
marriage as the context for human sexual activity.
Now, some gay-lifestyle advocates assert that Jesus was neutral or favorable since he did
not directly address the homosexuality issue. But an argument from silence proves nothing.
There are many things Christ did not teach about directly: bestiality, prostitution, incest, rape,
racism, to name a few. Does this prove he was not opposed to them? All were common in the
Roman world. No, we look to the principles he taught and find that he reaffirmed repeatedly
in the clearest and strongest terms that permanent heterosexual monogamy was the original
and continuing will of God as the only legitimate context for sexual relationships. But there
are more specific texts.
Genesis 19:1-29 (cf. the similar incident in Judges 19). God’s judgment on Sodom is
sometimes interpreted by those sympathetic to homosexuality as not being because people
had loving, committed gay relationships, but because this was attempted gang rape—a
terrible violation of the custom of hospitality. Or perhaps the Sodomites wanted to forcefully
interrogate these strangers to “know” (Heb yāda‘, Gen 19:5) whether or not they were spies
—to get acquainted but in an overbearing manner. The Hebrew verb “to know” occurs 943
times in the Old Testament, but only 10 times does it refer to sexual intercourse (e.g., Gen
4:1, Adam “knew” or “had relations” with Eve, and she conceived).[10] And where Sodom is
condemned elsewhere in Scripture, it is for nonsexual sins—arrogance and not helping the
poor and needy (Ezek 16:49-50; cf. Is 1:10; Jer 23:14). True, as interpreters, we should pay
attention to how Ezekiel does emphasize Sodom’s neglect of the poor and needy. And we
Western Christians should be more careful about singling out homosexuality as wrong but
neglecting the poor ourselves, which is also a wrong. And Gomorrah too is punished by God
along with Sodom for its wickedness; so divine judgment comes not merely because of an
attempted gang rape. But ancient Jewish literature regularly connected Sodom and
homosexual activity and rape. For example, according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the
Sodomites “hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices.”[11] The New
Testament reinforces the fact that one of Sodom’s sins is homosexual practices: “the sensual
conduct of unprincipled men” (2 Pet 2:7; cf. 2 Pet 2:10: “who indulge the flesh in its corrupt
desires”); “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (Jude 7). This isn’t a
simple breach of hospitality.
Furthermore, “knowing” here is not“showing hospitality.” The word know in Genesis
19:5 (and Judg 19:22) is clearly sexual, as the context indicates; the adjectives wicked,
vile and disgraceful (Gen 19:7; Judg 19:23) don’t sound like a mere breach of hospitality; the
offer of the women in both stories (Lot’s daughters; the Levite’s concubine) has sexual
connotations. Why offer women if the Sodomites’ intentions weren’t sexual in nature?
Although the word know means “sexual intercourse” only ten times in the Old Testament,
Bailey fails to mention that seven of them occur in Genesis (Gen
4:1, 17, 25; 19:5, 8; 24:16; 38:26). And the Sodom story itself mentions Lot’s daughters who
had not known a man (Gen 19:8)—that is, virgins.[12] Finally, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament indicates the translators understood know in this context as sexual relations; they
used syngenōmetha (from syngenomai)—the very verb used in Genesis 39:7-10, where
Potiphar’s wife wants Joseph to “lie with” (syngenesthai) her.[13]
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.These texts refer to the prohibition again lying with a man as with
a woman. Boswell claims that homosexuality is condemned in the Mosaic law, but because
of its association with idolatry or cult prostitution (cf. Deut 23:17). These laws are in the
same category as kosher food laws prohibiting shrimp or pork. This is a common but
misleading argument. The Canaanites were punished because of immoral acts, not dietary
preferences. And Leviticus 18 mentions not only homosexual relations (Lev 18:22), but
adultery (Lev 18:20), rape, incest, child sacrifice (Lev 18:21) and bestiality (Lev 18:23). And
even if the Canaanites didn’t practice these things, such acts would have been wrong for the
Israelites. Adultery is wrong even if it’s not committed with Canaanite cult prostitutes!
[14] Surely, it is a mistake to treat all levitical prohibitions as being on the same level as not
eating certain foods and not planting two crops in the same field. Note the emphasis
on action—lying “with a male as with a female”—not an inclination or desire.[15]
Some will press the point that the Hebrew word abomination (tô‘ēbāh) used in Leviticus
18 applies not only to homosexual acts (18:22; cf. 20:13); having sex with a menstruating
woman is prohibited (18:19), and sex during menstruation means one can be “cut off” from
the people of Israel (20:18). Isn’t homosexuality then on the same level as sex with a
menstruating woman? In addition to the points just made, we note that, first, the
term abomination itself occurs about 112 times in the Old Testament and denotes all sorts of
things and practices. Its first appearance is in Genesis 43:32, where it describes how the
Egyptians would not eat with the Hebrews because this is detestable—something that is
neither religious nor sexual. The same general sense of detestability is connected to the
term abomination. In Leviticus 18:26-30 the term describes the general acts just identified,
but in 18:22 and 20:13 it happens to flag homosexuality specifically. Second, these passages
on menstruation build on Leviticus 15:19-24, where any contact with a menstruating woman
renders one unclean. So sexual contact would logically seem to be all the more a cause of
uncleanness. (We noted earlier that both the emission of semen and the menstruation of
blood render male and female unclean because they “waste” those fluids specifically created
to give and nurture life.) Arguably, the prohibition against sex during a woman’s period is a
protective measure for the woman so that she does not constantly have to submit to the man’s
sexual demands.[16]
Romans 1:26-27. Here we read that God “gave over” women and men to degrading
passions because they exchanged their natural function for engaging in unnatural, indecent
acts. It is a clear text against homosexual relations, which are a turning toward idolatry away
from the knowledge of God and his original creational purposes (Rom 1:23). Because of this
rebellion, God withdraws his gracious influences (“gave them over,” Rom 1:24-28) and
allows them to fully pursue their rebellious desires. Along with idolatry and other
symptomatic deviations from God’s ordered creation, homosexual behavior is a clear
indication of violating God’s creational design for male and female to enjoy a one-flesh
sexual union in the context of marriage (Gen 1:26-27; 2:18-24). So clearly does this go
against God’s created design, Paul says it is against “nature” (physis, Rom 1:26)—the way
that God has ordered things (Rom 1:20; 2:1).
A common response is that homosexual acts aren’t being condemned; rather, it is when
individuals go against their own natural sexual orientation (“exchanged the natural function
for that which is unnatural”). So someone who is “naturally” homosexually inclined would
go “against nature” by engaging in heterosexual relations. But such thinking is anachronistic:
“neither Paul nor anyone else in antiquity had a concept of ‘sexual orientation.’”[17] This is a
recently constructed category.[18] And the words exchanged and abandoned in Romans
1 reflect not mere inclinations, but acting on them. Perhaps Paul is really critiquing wild
pagan sexual orgies—or pederasty (adult male sex with boys) or cult prostitution; or perhaps
he is arguing against Jewish hypocrisy (homosexuality goes against the Jewish holiness code,
but isn’t necessarily sinful for Gentiles, as some claim).[19]
A few brief points might be helpful here. First, we should not take
a sociological approach on these matters (“If Paul were alive today, he wouldn’t say that
acting on one’s homosexual propensity is wrong”), but a theological one (Scripture’s regular
appeal to God’s original design).[20] Humanity as a whole was designed with the capacity for
heterosexual marriage, and homosexuality and adultery are deviations from that design.[21]
Second, some claim that Romans 1 was condemning only male temple prostitution.
[22] However, temple prostitution was not practiced in the Greco-Roman world.[23] And if Paul
were merely condemning male prostitution in general, he would have used the well-known
masculine word porneuōn—or pornē for a female prostitute (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Others
claim that the issue is not temple prostitution but pederasty (adult males having sex with
young boys), but this is not so.[24] In addition, lesbian acts were
virtually universally condemned in Paul’s world; the temple prostitute or pederasty defense is
irrelevant here.
Third, the logic of such arguments is that if someone had a “natural inclination”
toward bestiality (animals), necrophilia (human corpses), sadomasochism (pleasure from
inflicting or receiving pain) or pedophilia (children), this person can legitimately act on that
orientation. Why not have a “loving and faithful incestuous relationship”? Some argue
that rape for human males is “natural” and biologically based. In light of Romans 1, should a
rape-oriented male resist or give in to his desire?[25] Some people may be born with a greater
propensity toward alcoholism than others, but we would be wrong to encourage fulfilling this
desire. Interestingly, pedophiles at the Virtuous Pedophiles website (virped.org) acknowledge
sexual attraction toward children, which they claim is fixed; yet they insist that they
should not act on that desire but show self-control or even receive therapy.
Fourth, we’re all born with a natural self-centered tendency, but that doesn’t mean we
should assume that we have a “right” to fulfill those inclinations. We are all damaged in one
way or other by the fall—spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically, sexually. Simply
because we have inclinations is not an argument for affirming them. And Scripture insists
that sexual gratification isn’t a right. Self-control is called for whether one is
heterosexually or homosexually inclined. We are to honor God in our bodies (1 Cor 6:20);
our bodies are “for the Lord” (1 Cor 6:13). In fact, one can faithfully serve God as an
unmarried person, whether this is voluntarily embraced or not—and whether one struggles
with sexual temptation toward the opposite sex or the same sex.
Fifth, Boswell and others have attempted to relativize Paul’s strong use of “against
nature” (para physin) in Romans 1. After all, doesn’t Paul argue that “nature” (physis)
teaches us that long hair for men is dishonorable (1 Cor 11:14-15)?[26]But clearly “nature,”
Boswell argues, must mean “culture”; so Paul’s argument is simply not rooted in human
nature, but in culture. Contrary to the idea that “nature” refers to “culture,” Paul has the
creation of male and female in mind (Gen 1:26-27). But Paul wasn’t making a universal
moral claim: “All men must wear short hair.” After all, Nazirites didn’t (Num 6; Judg 16:17).
Paul was only noting that in Roman society, a male’s long hair indicated a denial of
masculinity; it even advertised one’s homosexuality—just as a woman’s short hair or shorn
head indicated adultery. Paul’s point is this: “All first-century cultures possessed means by
which the polarity of the sexes was defined by various conventions; hair length was one such
feature in Roman Corinth, as [1 Cor] 11:14-15 accurately noted.”[27]
Sixth, Paul, along with other biblical writers, does not condemn same-sex attraction, but
rather sexual acts outside of the husband-wife marriage relationship. In fact, no writers of
antiquity, including biblical ones, had any conception of “sexual orientation”; rather, they
talked about homosexual acts. What of Boswell’s argument that the idea of loving committed
homosexual relationships was foreign to biblical cultures but was even permitted within the
Christian tradition?[28] Boswell is quite selective in his sources, including his use of the
church fathers.[29] New Testament scholar Richard Hays argues that Boswell’s biblical
interpretation and historical revisionism “has no support in the [biblical] text and is a
textbook case of reading into the text what one wants to find there.”[30]
1 Corinthians 6:9-10.Paul states that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,
the effeminate (Gk malakoi; cf. the Latin malacus], homosexuals (arsenokoitai), thieves, the
covetous, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” And he
adds, “Such were some of you.” Although homosexuality is a distortion of God’s one-flesh
design, this isn’t singled out in Paul’s list. Paul includes heterosexual sin (fornication,
adultery), sins related to possessions (thieving, coveting, swindling), and—here’s a broad one
that hits close to home—idolatry. Why is it, we could ask, that Christians championing
“biblical morality” on sexual matters go strangely silent on the New Testament’s teachings
about possessions?[31]
What does Paul have in mind by using the terms the effeminate and homosexuals? In the
Roman colony of Corinth, the paterfamilias (the male head of the Roman household) might
buy male slaves to use as passive sexual partners (effeminate); elite male citizens were
socially permitted to be the sexually “active” participants—leading partners (homosexuals).
[32] Roman law permitted this practice, but it was a crime for a slave to take sexual initiative
on a male Roman citizen. Not surprisingly, the Romans didn’t even come up with their own
word for this despised passive activity, but their Latin word malacus was simply a
transliteration of the Greek malakos (passive homosexual male). Yet Paul speaks
quite counter-culturally: both homosexual participants are in the wrong—the socially
despised passively involved (“effeminate”) and the socially acceptable actively
involved (“practicing homosexuals,” TNIV). In Romans 1, Paul says that all homosexual
relations are in view, including lesbianism.
What’s more, Paul is even using the Greek rendering of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus
20:13. In fact, he even coins a new word based on these passages. The
word arsenokoitēs comes from a combination of arsenikos (“male”) and koitē (“bed”), which
has sexual connotations (Rom 13:13, koitē refers to “sexual promiscuity”; cf. Num 5:20).
[33] And we have no ancient usage of this word prior to 1 Corinthians. Every usage of the
word after Paul by the Christian church fathers indicates male homosexual activity, and it is
frequently placed on their “vice lists.”[34] Here, Paul’s use of two words makes clear
that both participants—the leading and the following partners—are in the wrong. So Paul, in
faithfulness to the order God laid down at creation, wouldn’t parrot what was acceptable in
Roman society.
1 Timothy 1:9-11. “Law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless
and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill
their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals [arsenokoitais]
and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” Here
Paul applies the Ten Commandments to his contemporary context, and he includes “immoral
men” (pornois) and “homosexuals” (arsenokoitais), emphasizing the socially acceptable
active (as opposed to passive) homosexuality.
In light of this overview of the relevant biblical material, our previous discussion about
God’s purposes for marriage has been reinforced. That is, God ordained exclusive,
permanent, monogamous marriage as the only way to achieve the full unity of two human
beings, to provide children and home, and to reflect God’s/Christ’s own relationship to
redeemed humankind. Although some gay activists are bold enough to claim the first and
third purposes are available to a monogamous homosexual relationship, the whole thrust of
Scripture is toward the union of one man and one woman as God’s only way of fulfilling
these purposes and that a “one-flesh” union is not otherwise possible. True, only a few
passages deal directly with homosexual conduct, but the pervasive teaching of Scripture is to
condemn all sexual relationships outside the heterosexual marriage bond.
Scientific Considerations
Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male(1948) was a watershed study in the
homophile movement; it asserted that a large proportion of males (25 percent), though not
exclusively homosexual, nevertheless had some same-sex sexual desires (thus being
bisexual), though they may not have necessarily acted on these desires. He also said that 10
percent of white American males were “more or less” homosexual for at least three years of
their lives (between ages 16 and 65). A study published in 1994 shattered the myths
originally generated by the flawed Kinsey Report and perpetuated by homosexual activists
and the media. A definitive study done on sexual attitudes and practices in America
concluded that 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women are homosexual or bisexual—
not the commonly claimed, but mythical, “10 percent.”[35] A 2011 study showed that the
number is slightly less—gays, lesbians and bisexuals comprise 3.5 percent of the US
population.[36]
But why are any persons same-sex attracted? Throughout church history this was
assumed to be the result of a willful, sinful, perverted choice. But with the rise of psychology
in the last century, homosexual orientation came to be viewed as morally neutral, but
nevertheless a pathological condition that was held to be the result of an inherited
maladjustment (Freud)—with little possibility of changing sexual orientation.
Ironically, the first professional legitimization of homosexuality didn’t come as the result
of scientific research. Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had listed
homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM); it had
maintained that homosexuals needed treatment. Political pressure from gay activists such as
the National Gay Task Force provoked this turnabout. In fact, even in 1979, sex researchers
Masters and Johnson said that homosexuals are “homosexually oriented by learned
preferences,” and as late as 1985 they declared the “genetic theory of homosexuality” to be
“generally discarded today.”[37]
Just as Christians have wrongly blamed “choice” for same-sex attraction, so the gay
community commonly appeals to genetics—that people are “born that way.” Despite the
“biology is destiny” mindset, there has been, to date, no “gay gene” discovered. On the flip
side, the “nurture” aspect of what contributes to same-sex attraction has been ignored within
the gay community. Indeed, their familiar mantra is that people are “born gay” and that
same-sex attraction is permanent; one can never be an ex-gay. But what does the scientific
evidence show?
Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer had been a giant in the APA who advocated for removing
homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Yet in 2003 he investigated the claims of those who
had been same-sex attracted but had undergone “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE).
Spitzer concluded his research this way: “The majority of participants gave reports of change
from predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a
predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year.”[38]Now, the gay
community that once praised him as courageous came to denounce him. Under incredible
pressure he eventually “retracted” his conclusions, asserting that the data could be
misinterpreted by people; for example, that they may conclude same-sex attraction is a
choice or that same-sex attracted patients going through SOCE will always be cured.[39] Of
course, Spitzer’s own conclusions were fairly modest and uncontroversial. Psychology
professor at Regent University Mark Yarhouse had spoken with Spitzer after his study, noting
that Spitzer “often referenced the believability of the people he interviewed, as well as
confirmation in some cases from spouses” about their gradual change from being same-sex
attracted to opposite-sex attracted.[40]
Does genetics make any contribution to same-sex attraction? We do not deny there may
be a partial physical contribution to the entire complex of factors contributing to same-sex
attraction (see figure 18.1). However, this factor cannot be labeled “the cause” of same-sex
attraction. For example, let’s consider a common scenario about how physical endowments
(“genetics”) can contribute to same-sex attraction—but not in any determinative or
overriding way. A young boy may not be very athletic. And because of his temperament he
may have a strong interest in the arts or music or literature. In addition, he may fail to bond
with his own father at an early age while only bonding with his mother. Then as he grows
older, he is rejected by his same-sex peers on the playground or in gym class, is called a
“sissy” or “gay,” and receives no nonsexual same-sex affirmation verbally or physically
(hugs, pats on the back). He internalizes this rejection, and when the boy reaches puberty, his
desire to bond with the same sex becomes eroticized. Yes, we have a physical factor in the
equation, but it is insufficient to account for same-sex attraction.
Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, a theologian who has counseled with homosexuals, has observed
this same pattern. She writes that the need for masculine love and affirmation that doesn’t
come in childhood may, with the onset of sexual maturation,
be inappropriately eroticized—with a pre-adult developmental lack carried into adulthood
and inappropriately met with sexual activity. The adult homosexual does, of course, have
choices—to remain celibate, to engage in sexual activity, or to seek therapy to resolve the
unfinished business of childhood. But the homosexual orientation itself, though not innate,
remains something the adult may not have chosen.[41]
Elsewhere, Moberly writes of one constant underlying principle that suggests itself “that
the homosexual—whether man or woman—has suffered some deficit in the relationship with
the parent of the same sex; and that there is a corresponding drive to make good this deficit—
through the medium of same-sex or ‘homosexual’ relationships.”[42]
For lesbians, the complexities are compounded by having grown up with male violence
or sexual molestation; to their minds, the only place to find intimacy and safety is with
women.
Figure 18.1. Factors contributing to same-sex attraction
At any rate, one should not commit the “either-or” fallacy of creating false alternatives:
same-sex attraction is due to either biological or environmental and volitional factors; it’s
either nature or nurture, either physically determined or a choice. While many in the gay
community affirm the “only biology” side, many Christians affirm the “only choice” side.
Instead of causes, we should speak of influences or contributing factors. Influences may
include the physical, but they certainly include environmental factors such as family
upbringing (distant father, overprotective or smothering mother), childhood experiences
(peer bullying, sexual molestation, violence), reactions and choices (sexual experimentation),
and the cultural environment (being taught at school or on TV that homosexuality is natural
and normal).[43]
The late Anthony Falzarano, an ex-gay who would marry and have two children (he had
been a friend of Paul’s), said in his book, Such Were Some of You, that ex-gays are the
greatest threat to the gay movement. Indeed, it opposes any who defy the gay “born that
way” narrative—and thus that any can “change their orientation.”[44] The gay movement does
not strike us as open to the findings of scientific research; it reacts strongly to the legitimacy
of any research that supports the idea that parental failure may have played a strong part in
contributing to same-sex attraction. If the problem is nurture rather than nature, then change
from same-sex attraction to opposite-sex attraction is theoretically possible.
Psychologists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse document their research about
“religiously mediated change in sexual orientation” in their book Ex-Gays.[45]They point out
the common pro-gay strategy of “shaming and ridicule rather than serious
discourse.”[46] Another pro-gay strategy is to insist that any contrary research is biased;
however, Jones and Yarhouse note, “there are few neutral researchers on such controversial
issues.”[47] Indeed, the fact that research supporting the gay lobby reveals that “neutrality” is
not a requirement for “admission to the discussion.”[48] Stanton and Yarhouse state that their
research offers “evidence that change of homosexual orientation may be possible” and that
this change may take the form of a reduction in homosexual attraction and behavioral
chastity; it may also take the form of a reduction in homosexual attraction with what might
be described as satisfactory heterosexual adjustment. Those who report chastity regard
themselves as having reestablished their sexual identities to be defined in some way other
than by their homosexual attractions. Those who report a heterosexual adjustment regard
themselves as having changed their sexual orientation.[49]
Such changes can actually manifest themselves physically; medical science can actually
detect a re-routing of the brain’s neural pathways as the result of a person’s establishing new
life patterns. While the brain may be “wired” a certain way—perhaps through an array of
childhood experiences—its neural circuitry can be changed. The previously cited words of
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover of Harvard Medical School are worth repeating here.
The neocortex is the part of the brain that we might consider as the seat of the will It is
also the part of the brain whose connections between the neurons will be slowly modified
over time, strengthening some connections, weakening others, and eliminating some entirely
—all based on how experience shapes us. This ongoing process embeds the emerging pattern
of our choices ever more firmly in actual tissue changes. These changes make it that much
more likely for us to make the same choice with less direct effort the next time—and that
much more difficult to make a different choice.[50]
Since homosexuality is not the result of genetic necessity but results largely from
dysfunctional same-sex relationships in one’s youth (whether with parent or peers) or from
sexual or physical abuse, this also signals the possibility of greater healing and wholeness,
which thousands of ex-gays have found—another indication that people aren’t “born gay.”
Furthermore, longitudinal studies involving hundreds of thousands of teenagers have shown
that same-sex attractedness for teens is not necessarily part of their “sexual identity.” Indeed,
most same-sex attracted teens found themselves opposite-sex attracted a year later.[51]
Pastoral Considerations
Presuppositions have a great deal to do with outcomes. Those who believe homosexuality
is a normal and healthy condition do not seek “healing”; those who believe it is not sin, but
rather a gift of God, do not need conversion, they assume; those who believe that change is
impossible will hardly seek to change and, should they do so, could not be expected to
achieve it. For these reasons, the homosexual community is adamant in its refusal to admit
that a true homosexual can change.
What, then, should be the church’s attitude toward the homosexual? First, we take it for
granted that the Bible opposes the ordination of practicing homosexuals because it forbids
the ordination of those living in sexual sin; it treats homosexual behavior as a distortion of
God’s creational design. However, repentant, converted homosexuals—even if they struggle
with same-sex attraction—may exercise unreservedly their gifts and calling within the
church.
Second, we must recognize the distinction between same-sex attraction and
homosexual acts, including lust (which is a choice). Same-sex attraction, on which the Bible
is silent, is not something a person can directly control; indeed, many same-sex attracted
persons would prefer to be opposite-sex attracted.
Third, virtually all human beings have strong sex drives that the Bible holds may be
properly satisfied only in heterosexual marriage. Homosexuals who are thereby frustrated are
in no greater discomfort than single heterosexuals. To both God holds out the assurance of
fulfillment either through marriage or by the grace to remain pure though unmarried.
Fourth, what of those who fail? God offers to forgive and accept, and so must his people.
The church must accept repentant homosexuals who do not justify their sinful behavior but
confess it and seek God’s deliverance. Furthermore, the church must compassionately work
with such people to enable them to become what God originally intended—conformed to the
image of Christ, which may lead to other changes, such as increased attraction to the
opposite sex; and single persons, whether same- or opposite-sex attracted, must sublimate
their sexual drive into other creative channels. And Paul apparently knew some who had
practiced homosexuality, yet he said, “And such were some of you. But you were washed,
you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit
of our God” (1 Cor 6:11 RSV).
Fifth, while it is possible for a person’s desires to change dramatically, a gradual process
is more typical. Wheaton psychologist Stanton Jones claims that “every study of conversion
(from homosexual to heterosexual) reports some successes, ranging from 33 to 60
percent.”[52] Tim Stafford’s observation, after interviewing eight former homosexuals who
changed as a result of their walk with Christ, is perhaps more typical of the healing process.
They were certainly not describing a quick 180-degree reversal of their sexual desires; rather,
they described a gradual reversal in their spiritual understanding of themselves as men and
women in relationship to God. They said this new understanding was helping them to relearn
distorted patterns of thinking and relating. They presented themselves as people in process,
though they were very clear that the process was well under way.[53]
Some would argue that most of the reported cures, if the truth were known, were of
bisexual people, not of hardcore, exclusive, “constitutional” homosexuals, but such claims go
against the available evidence and testimonies of those who, from all appearances, have been
exclusively same-sex attracted.[54] Just as people may struggle with the effects of child abuse
all their life, so with same-sex attraction. But any changes that come often begin with a new
mindset and a new determination. For example, stopping a behavior like smoking is the first
step even if cravings continue. Some may say, “Ah, but you still have the cravings.” But
surely stopping smoking is a huge step, and this can lead to a diminished desire as time goes
on. Likewise, stopping immoral sexual activity (hetero- or homosexual) is the first step in a
Godward direction. So when a person who was once powerfully attracted to someone of the
same sex—prompting a reaction of “Whoa!”—can come to the point where the reaction is
more like “Oh,” this is truly significant.
Finally, our identity should not be shaped by attractions toward the same or opposite sex;
rather our identity should be shaped by the reality creation and redemption—that we are
God’s image bearers and are “in Christ.”[55] The chief goal in helping those struggling with
same-sex attraction is to urge them to greater Christlikeness—to seek first God’s kingdom—
whether those desires subside or not. The church should extend grace and compassion just as
it should to struggling alcoholics—indeed, to struggling sinners, like all of us are.
This means that self-labels or the language we use (“this is my orientation” or “my sexual
preference is . . .”) can grossly distort reality. In one survey, females labeled themselves
same-sex attracted for only three to four years and males five to six years. A study in 2000
revealed that females who had experienced same-sex attraction disliked labels, saw their
sexual identity as fluid, and had actually changed in what they understood to be their sexual
identity.
The most secure identity marker is who we are in Christ—not orientation, not sexual
preference. Our identity includes more than sexual attraction; it includes whether you were
born male or female; how masculine or feminine you feel; what you intend to do with the
attractions you have; what you actually do with the attractions you have; and your beliefs
and values about your sexual attractions and behaviors. According to Scripture, our sexual
orientation doesn’t hinge on sexual attraction, orientation, or factors that gave shape to this.
Furthermore, instead of emphasizing “orientation,” focus on “identity.” This enables us to
keep an eye on the goal—Christlikeness—and focus on what we treasure and of whose
kingdom we are a part. The proper focus should be transformation into Christ’s image, not
whether “orientation” or “sexual attraction” changes.
As we mentioned earlier, integrity or “authenticity” should focus more on who Christ is
and what he demands from me—not what I have experienced, what I desire, or how I feel,
which may be twisted by the fall and human sin. Same-sex attraction doesn’t truly indicate
“who I really am.” Even if this is my experience, this is not the defining element of who I am
as a person. If I recognize this, then I don’t need to pursue “authenticity” or “self-
actualization” by means of my sexual identity. Christians can remind their fellow strugglers
that they can persevere and that healing can often be found. Perhaps they might even be able
to identify a key factor that gave shape to their same-sex attraction and enable them to find
healing—through repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Further Reading
Copan, Paul. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2008. Chapters 10–11.
Dallas, Joe, and Nancy Heche, eds. The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding
Homosexuality. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2010.
Gagnon, Robert. www.robgagnon.net (for thorough, scholarly discussion on homosexuality,
Scripture and culture).
NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality),
www.narth.com.
Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality
Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Thompson, Chad. Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004.
19The Gay Marriage Question
Former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank (who is gay) asked: “What difference
does it make to you if my partner and I get married? How does it change your life in any real
way?” Though Frank makes legalizing gay marriage a mere minor social adjustment, its
implications are momentous. As we pointed out earlier, the cultural tide is shifting in favor of
gay marriage, and this includes a growing number of professing Christians. Legal and social
changes are taking place before our eyes.
Christ’s disciples will have to exhibit greater courage and conviction on this issue.
[1]Indeed, we see pressures mounting at a popular level. In everyday discussions, it is not
unusual to be presented with these false alternatives: you either agree that gay marriage is a
matter of justice and equality, or you are a bigot. That disagreement can be a matter of
religious liberty or the freedom of conscience is dismissed without argument. At the legal
level, persons of conviction about traditional marriage in the workplace, church and
elsewhere are being sued, bankrupted and even imprisoned.[2]
How should the Christian respond? We have already examined the biblical material and
offered some pastoral guidance for those who accept the biblical perspective on
homosexuality. But simply to quote Scripture as authoritative to those who reject its authority
is misguided. As we have mentioned before, Christians have the benefit of not
only special revelation (Scripture and Jesus of Nazareth), but also of general revelation,
which is accessible to all people: creation, conscience, reason and human
experience. Both types of revelation enable us to know about the qualities of the one true
God (Rom 1:20).
Responding to the Gay Marriage Question
So we should be prepared to make a winsome case for traditional marriage that appeals to
publicly available statistics and good reasons that reinforce the biblical viewpoint. Even in
the face of personal attacks and insults, we must be careful to be civil, gracious
representatives of Jesus Christ. So let us briefly consider the case for traditional marriage
without appealing to “religious authority.”
First, consider the myth of government neutrality. The very claim that
government ought to take a stand on the gay marriage issue isn’t a neutral claim. This is a
moral claim—that the government has a duty to do something—and that not to do something
is to take a stance. Consider the abortion debate. While politicians may attempt to evade the
question about the status of the unborn by saying that this is “above their pay grade,” if they
endorse abortion on demand, they have taken a stand on the status of the unborn: whatever
that status is, it can be turned into “a woman’s right to choose.” The same non-neutrality is
true about gay marriage.
Second, the state has an interest in promoting healthy family life, and it should give
priority to policies that promote this. The statistics are clear: as traditional marriage declines
or deteriorates, state spending increases.[3] Statistics further show that not all parenting
arrangements are equal; some, such as single-parenting, are just inferior to the traditional
family model. So the state should promote structures that reinforce the traditional family
arrangement, which has stood the test of time in generally producing stable, healthy-minded,
well-adjusted children—and thus good citizens.
Children need both a father and a mother. But gay marriage necessarily deprives them of
this. And studies reveal that gay or lesbian parenting is a less-than-optimal family
arrangement.[4] On top of this, gay partnerships tend to be far more sexually promiscuous
than their heterosexual counterparts; the range is between 101 and 500 partners,[5] and,
shockingly, some gay advocates like Andrew Sullivan presume that sex with more partners
can enhance the marriage connection between gays.[6] But this only creates further instability
in the home and does further damage to children.
Third, when it comes to defining marriage, gay marriage advocates often emphasize that
marriage is defined or constructed by society. And they assume that, whatever the definition
of marriage, gays and lesbians should be included. But we don’t actually get
a definition from them.
So what is marriage? It is a union between a man and a woman who permanently and
exclusively commit themselves to each other, and this union is naturally fulfilled in bearing
and rearing children together.[7] The sexual (conjugal) act seals and unites them in their
commitment; a man and a woman naturally equipped to bear and bring up children, and this
is to be done in the context of a lifelong, faithful husband-wife bond. Note that this isn’t
some “religious” definition, as gay advocates assume. It is a universal one that is rooted in
human nature that has been shared across time and civilizations.
Furthermore, marriage is a comprehensive union. It is a sharing of lives and resources at
the deepest level. This sharing of life includes the organic, intimate sharing of their bodies.
Sexual intercourse between man and woman creates a bodily union (what Gen 2:24 refers to
as “one flesh”). Male and female sexual organs have a very obvious coordinated fit. This is
very clear from observing the process of conception, gestation and childbirth. The male-
female sexual union—unlike same-sex unions—is an organic unity capable of producing and
bearing children. Yes, marriages for the minority in various cultures have been polygamous,
and we have seen that this is an inferior and problematic marital arrangement. However, even
in these cultures, there is no doubt that marriage is to be permanent and exclusive, and it is
geared toward bearing children through conjugal (sexual) acts. That is, marriage’s very
definition involves members of the opposite sex, not the same sex.
Fourth, what do we say in response to the idea that societies simply “construct”
marriage? This “social construction” or “revisionist” view of marriage is the main line of
reasoning behind the push for gay marriage—that we can just define marriage any way we
want to as a society. The revisionist view says that there is no core definition of marriage;
marriage has no “essence” to it. One marital arrangement is just as legitimate and
“constructible” as another. But if this is so, why must marriage include gays and
lesbians unless it has an essence to it—an essence that has not been constructed by societies?
Isn’t marriage under the Taliban or Muslim sharia law just another construction? And why
should those who advocate the traditional view of marriage be considered “bigots” if
marriage has no universal definition or essence? What is “unjust” or “discriminatory”
about any marital arrangement or law? By the revisionist’s logic, there’s no way to get
marriage “wrong”! And isn’t “justice” or “discriminatory” or “equality” nothing more than a
social construction—a human invention? How could anything be condemned? This, of
course, brings us back to the critique of moral relativism (see part five).
Fifth, laws are by nature discriminatory to some extent. No matter what definition you
give for “marriage,” it will differentiate between marriage and non-marriage.
Sixth, not all marital arrangements are created equal. There are marital and family
configurations that are bad or inferior to the husband-wife union. While our hats are off to
single parents, say, who try to care for their children and work hard to support their family,
clearly this is not ideal. But there are parents of children born out of wedlock, which
virtually guarantees a life of poverty, limited opportunities and social problems.[8] If we
follow the revisionists, other “marriage” arrangements could be sanctioned in the name of
“equality” or “non-discrimination”—regardless of any social harm it would bring.
So let us consider other scenarios. What about group marriage? Five men and five
women, for instance, could call their group a “marriage.” What of incestuous marriage?
Consider the 2010 story of Columbia University political science professor David Epstein,
who engaged in incestuous sex with his daughter—who was of legal age. Should the state
promote open marriages, in which partners are free to have sex with other partners? Should
the state discriminate against temporary marriage? This is a common practice within Shia
Islam, known as mut’a; what differentiates this from prostitution (which is considered “sin”)
is agreeing to a price in advance with the official consent of a mullah. Then there
is bestial marriage. Why differentiate between animals and humans? Would not doing so
display the discriminatory view of “speciesism”—wrongly favoring one species over
another? What of polygamous marriage? Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute has
documented that European nations such as Britain and Germany give welfare support to
polygamous Muslim families, sometimes supporting three or four wives with six or seven
children.[9] Or why not allow marriage to include marriage to self ? Clearly, changing the
definition of marriage to suit anyone’s preferences would weaken marriage and make it less
stable for the raising of children. Emotional desires are not a reason to justify changing the
definition of marriage. The very nature of marriage, which involves faithfulness and loving
commitment, becomes weakened by grounding it on emotional desires. And even if children
are in need of good homes and even if there are very kind and compassionate gays and
lesbians, this isn’t a basis for redefining marriage.
Finally, with the social landscape changing and increased legalization of gay marriage,
this brings both opportunities and challenges. Christians have many opportunities for
ministry in a world of broken, fragmented and dysfunctional families. We can open our
homes to those who have experienced damage and brokenness and, by God’s grace, bring
healing and redemption through committed, loving, forgiving relationships. On
the challenge side, we as a society have moved from legally tolerating to legally approving
gay marriage. This is no light matter. Some critics claim that Christians are engaging in fear-
mongering by using faulty “slippery slope” arguments: “If gay marriage is legalized, then
traditionalists will be discriminated against.” Actually, the discrimination against
traditionalists like Christians, orthodox Jews and Mormons has already been taking place.
We have ample documentation of job firings and lawsuits being taken against traditionalists
for their “hate speech” and “discrimination” because they speak from moral conviction
against gay marriage.
In terms of a political response in a democratic society, Christian people should without
apology work for laws that enforce the biblical ideal, but they should engage in persuasion
using public arguments with the view to the best interests of society (see part ten on the
Christian and society). At the present stage of America’s judicial and legal rulings, it appears
that gay marriage will become a matter of “states’ rights” rather than a sweeping national
one. (How certain states voting to reject gay marriage will deal with gay couples “married”
in pro-gay marriage states will, no doubt, become a contested issue.) In the case of state-by-
state legislation that is left up to the vote of the people, we should remember that it would not
be acceptable to the majority of the people to override their will by imposing laws they find
disagreeable. In fact, an imposition by the minority (or even a lone judge) may do a
disservice to morality in general, and this simply adds impetus to lawlessness. Yet Christians
can and should work to defend the freedom of conscience for all. This includes the Christian
print shop owner who out of conviction refuses to print lesbian wedding invitations—
although he should print birthday invitations for a lesbian person since this is not a matter of
the freedom of conscience. Nor, for the same reason, should a lesbian couple owning a print
shop be forced to print anti-gay posters for Westboro Baptist Church—and Christians should
defend the right to their convictions—but they should print birthday invitations for a member
of Westboro Baptist Church as part of their service for the common good.[10]
As God’s people, who have a duty to hope, we should not live in fear. While we can
engage in politics and work hard to bring about change, as social reformers like William
Wilberforce have done, we should not put our trust in government but in God, whose
kingdom will never end.
Two Objections to the Traditional Marriage View
Two leading objections launched against traditional husband-wife marriage are the
“infertility objection” and the “interracial marriage objection.”
The infertility objection states that if marriage is between a man and a woman whose life
together is naturally fulfilled in the conceiving and bearing of children, what
about infertile couples who can’t carry this out? Can there be marriage without bearing
children? Yes. Historically, we have taken for granted that consummating a marriage after the
wedding took place through sexual union (“coitus”). Notice that this uniting act can take
place even if it doesn’t result in the production of children. Engaging in the kinds of sexual
activities that same-sex couples engage in don’t qualify as consummation—a one-flesh
union. “Gay marriage” actually turns out to be a contradiction in terms since it does not have
the capacity to bring about a one-flesh union.
From a physiological perspective, a man and a woman are self-evidently structurally
suited to each other—even if they happen to be infertile. Consider the analogy of baseball. A
baseball team can be organized, practice, play in a league, but never win a game. Of course,
they have a strong desire to win, but they happen not to win any games. Likewise, a couple’s
infertility doesn’t prevent genuine marriage from taking place.
Beyond this, infertile couples contribute to a “marriage culture.” That is a good thing.
And if they should choose to adopt children, this would further contribute to the children’s
healthier upbringing since, statistically, children brought up by a mother and a father are
better off on every measureable scale than any other parenting arrangement.
What of the interracial marriage objection? Gay marriage advocates will raise the point
that interracial marriage was once banned (known as antimiscegenation laws) but now is
legal. So traditionalists should “get over” their commitment to traditional marriage and
“widen the tent” on this matter as well. However, the problem with this analogy is this: the
issue wasn’t about what marriage was but about whom one could marry. The very essence of
marriage was presumed to be the same—a one flesh union between husband and wife. But
antimescegenation prohibited certain persons from becoming husband and wife.
We have given an overview of the biblical view of marriage and sexuality—as well as
deviations from this pattern. We now turn to the matter of the home—namely, responsibilities
as spouses, parents and children.
Further Reading
Budziszewski, J. The Meaning of Sex. Washington, DC: ISI, 2012.
Dallas, Joe, and Nancy Heche, eds. The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding
Homosexuality. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2010.
Girgis, Sherif, Robert P. George and Ryan T. Anderson. What Is Marriage? Man and
Woman: A Defense. New York: Encounter Books, 2012.
National Marriage Project. www.nationalmarriageproject.org.
Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are
Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
20The Christian Home
“The family that prays together stays together” is a common slogan in Christian circles.
Actually, it is equally true that, from a sociological viewpoint, the family
that stays together prays together. Like the double-helix ladder of the DNA, whose strengths
depend on one another, a healthy family life reinforces the faith, and a healthy faith
reinforces the family life. Elizabeth Eberstadt documents this in her book How the West
Really Lost God.[1] The rise of secularism in the West has undermined the integrity of the
family and thus the strength of the Christian faith. Eberstadt illustrates her point by looking
at rap in popular culture. Their themes of misogyny, racism, hostility toward religion and
authority, child abuse and the like reflect a general rage in today’s youth culture at their
dysfunctional childhoods. For example, one song by the group Papa Roach (“Broken
Home”) mourns the absence of a father—in addition to loneliness, lack of direction and
having no one to confide in. Their song “Last Resort” refers to suicidal thoughts, self-
mutilation, inner emptiness and desperation.[2] And it is largely the failure or absence of
robust faith in the home that leads to such an outcome in the West.
The home life is critical to passing on a vibrant faith to the next generation. Scripture
gives much rich guidance concerning the cultivation of Christlike attitudes and behavior
within the home, which is to be a small reflection of the body of Christ and a lighthouse and
refuge in a darkened, hostile world.
Earlier, we considered male and female in biblical perspective. As we now consider the
questions concerning the responsibilities of husband, wife and children in the home, we
should here point out our complementarian-egalitarian differences.
Roughly, complementarianism maintains that male and female are not only distinct, but each
is obligated to fulfill specific biblically warranted complementary “roles” in the home and in
the church. Moreover, a hierarchy exists in role—though not in nature or essence—such that
men are called to be leaders in the home, and women are to submit to their leadership. By
contrast, egalitarianism does not deny male-female distinctions (e.g., women’s capacity to
bear children and in most cases being better equipped to nurture children). Nor does it reject
a proper sense of male or female identity (e.g., 1 Cor 11:14). Egalitarianism affirms that,
when it comes to spiritual authority in church or home, there is no “male and female.”
Authority is shared equally by man and woman in their gifts, which the Spirit gives as he
wills, and in their calling in the ministry of the church.
The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (“The Danvers Statement”) is
somewhat representative of evangelical complementarianism, which
affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary
differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family
as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while
men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching
roles are restricted to men. Evangelical egalitarianism claims, roughly, there is no intrinsic
hierarchy of male over female, that authority in the church, the home, and the world should
not be based on gender but on a person’s natural and spiritual gifts. Egalitarians typically
reject the patriarchy embedded within biblical cultures and seek to correct it in light of
creation and the new creation in Christ.
Our approach here will be to devote material to McQuilkin’s overall complementarian
perspective and then to Copan’s egalitarian one. Both of our approaches, however, call for
“putting on” the things of Christ—humility, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, love—in
word, deed and attitude. And we both recognize the full equality and intrinsic worth of every
person before God, both male and female.
Complementarianism (Mcquilkin’s Perspective)
The traditional or “complementarian” viewpoint, when adopted, has proved liberating for
women in most societies, but in recent years it has come under fire as demeaning women.
The feminist movement in America first targeted civil rights (the vote), then economic rights
(equal pay for equal work), then employment rights (equal access to any position), marital
rights (egalitarian marriage) and, finally, ecclesiastical rights (ordination).
Few today would argue against civil and economic rights for women, though some still
hold that leadership positions in government and the workplace should be restricted to men.
Because all people see through the lens of their own culture, it is probably hypocritical to
condemn our ancestors for blindness to biblical truth—what C. S. Lewis called
“chronological snobbery.” (In what respects do we remain blind?) Yet it is difficult from
today’s vantage point to see how the oppression and subjugation of women could have been
so universal for so long, often justified on the basis of (misunderstood) Scripture. Because of
our past record of molding Scripture to culture’s shape, we must courageously pursue
biblical truth concerning contemporary issues.
When it comes to the place of male and female in marriage and the church, controversy
rages. George Gilder points out that, in general, each marriage partner can do what the other
does—aside from when brute strength is a key asset. Throughout history each has done the
work of the other, when necessary. What is novel today is the idea that the members of each
sex ought to do the other’s work, or that it makes no difference for society who does what.
Gilder marshals impressive evidence from the spheres of biology, anthropology, history and
psychology to reinforce the complementarian—and what I take to be biblical—viewpoint.
[3] Whatever may be said of empirical evidence, in my estimation the Bible speaks directly to
the issue and it is not altogether on the side of contemporary Christian egalitarians.
In the modern world, the Bible has been viewed as patriarchal and sexist. Some feminists
outside the church as well as many liberal scholars who reject the authority of Scripture yet
identify themselves as Christians, accept this understanding of the biblical data. By contrast,
evangelical egalitarians, who have a high view of biblical inspiration and authority, see these
ancient embedded patriarchal social structures as fallen and thus distinct from God’s ideal of
male-female equality without hierarchy, as reflected in Genesis 1–2. Most early feminists,
like Francis Willard, were devout evangelicals who believed the Bible is God’s Word and
defended their views, including the ministry of women, from the Bible.
Interpretation. First, a word about tradition: while the Christian tradition is not infallible,
the longstanding interpretation of the husband as the head of the wife and home should not
be dismissed lightly. It would seem that those who disagree would bear a greater burden of
proof than the traditionalist. Again, this is not infallible, but it is a point worth considering.
What of the biblical texts themselves? The Magna Carta for those taking the egalitarian
view is Galatians 3:28 (NIV): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is
there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Is Paul advocating absolutely no
differentiation when it comes to race, sex or slavery? Is Paul abolishing gender differences,
for example? Paul could have added that there is no adult or child, no teacher or disciple, no
elder or younger, but this does not keep Paul from elsewhere insisting that genuine
distinctions and attendant responsibilities exist. In fact, he consistently highlights the unique
responsibilities of servant and master, parent and child, teacher and disciple, elder and
younger, husband and wife.
Creation order.The egalitarian holds that male and female were created coequal and that
the subordinate role of the wife was a result of the fall. The curse stated, “Your desire shall
be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16 RSV). Just as it is legitimate for
people to work against the other results of the fall (pain in childbirth, hard ground and
thorns), those who live under grace should reject this pattern and return to the original design
of an egalitarian marriage.[4]
We see in the Garden, however, that man is created before woman and names her. Adam
seems to bear the greater responsibility, as God rebukes him first, even though Eve first
partook of the fruit; the New Testament suggests that fallen humans are “in Adam,” our
representative head (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). These texts suggest a hierarchy rooted in creation,
not the result of the fall. George Knight observes:
We should carefully recognize that the Bible never builds its case for the role relationship of
men and women in marriage or in the home upon the effects of sin manifested in Genesis
3:16. The Apostle Paul appeals to the pre-fall creation order as normative—as he does
in Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11and 14, 1 Timothy 2. (The closest Paul comes to this is in 1
Timothy 2, and there not as the grounds for the relationship but to show the dire
consequences of what happened when woman disrespects man, her source, by assuming
authority over a man without proper delegation of such authority.) It is God’s creation order
for the man-woman relation as evidenced in Genesis 2 (and also Genesis 1) that is normative
in the New Testament, not the effects of sin as evidenced in Genesis 3.[5]
The created order suggests difference in function.
Old Testament. Egalitarians consider the Old Testament’s patriarchal society as fallen and
non-ideal: the husband was the legal point-person and ultimate decision-maker. However,
even if Israel’s society was overly patriarchal, this does not negate the scriptural fact that the
final responsibility rested on the shoulders of the father/husband (e.g., Ex 22:17; Num
1:2; Deut 22:13-19).
Headship. Paul speaks of the leadership of the husband. Egalitarians and even a few
complementarians have held that Paul merely referred to the historical fact that man was
created first and thus was the source (“head”) of the woman. Each mate, in turn, becomes the
source of life to the other.[6] I find this interpretation strained, but an even greater objection is
that whatever head means, it describes the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph
5:23), which is the fundamental model that the traditionalist claims for the husband-wife
relationship in the home.
Submission. The key disagreement between egalitarians and traditionalists is the
extensive passage on husband-wife relationships in Ephesians 5. What does subject mean?
The word “subject” is a translation of the Greek hupotasso. Hupo means “under”
and tasso means “arrange.” It was originally a military term referring to the relations of a
soldier to his commanding officer. Paul uses it in this passage (Ephesians 5) to explain the
relationship between Christians. It is best translated relate yourselves to, respond
to, or adjust yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ There is nothing in the
fifth chapter of Ephesians that would even remotely indicate [that wives are to submit to their
husbands].[7]
Once again, the traditionalist has not felt compelled by the argument because
whatever submission means, Paul says it is similar in marriage to the appropriate response of
the believer to Christ—or, in the above case, between a soldier and his commanding officer.
Of more force is the emphasis that the key idea in the passage is Ephesians 5:21: “Be
subject to one another.” This is taken by egalitarians to apply equally to husband and wife
with no role distinction. The difficulty with such an interpretation is applying it in a parallel
fashion to the parent-child relationship. And that, even for the most committed egalitarian, is
difficult. To this idea of making verse 21 cancel the apparent meaning of the following
verses, Paul Jewett, a staunch advocate of egalitarianism, responds:
When he exhorts his converts to subject themselves to one another (5:21), he does not mean
simply that in Christ everyone should be mutually submissive to his neighbor as an
expression of humility. There is, in the Christian household, a certain order, and our
subjection to one another in Christ is determined by this order: Wives are to be subject to
their husbands as the church is subject to Christ (5:22-23);children are to be obedient to their
parents as the fifth commandment enjoins (6:1-3); and slaves are to be subject to their
masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart as to Christ (6:5ff.).[8]
The pervasive teaching of Paul that the husband should be the responsible leader in the
home is so clear and strong that Jewett must acknowledge this. That said, other egalitarians
will claim that, grammatically, mutual submission is linked only to the wife-husband
relationship, not to the later section on the parent-child relationship. Also, most evangelical
egalitarians do not cancel out Paul’s calls to women to submit to their husbands, but rather
affirm this and see it as one aspect of mutual submission.
By affirming my advocacy of the historic view of the husband assigned “headship” in the
home, I must clarify that I do not join those “complementarians” who extend this model as
assigning exclusive “headship” to males in other contexts. I can find no Scripture applying
this principle to government, the marketplace or even the military. In fact, we find a number
of women in Scripture assigned leadership in those contexts by God himself.
Leadership in the church may be more problematical since Paul clearly forbids women to
teach men (1 Tim 2:12). But then I discover in Scripture a woman (Priscilla) instructing a
leading preacher of the day over a period of time (Acts 18:26). We find young women
anointed by the Spirit to preach (Acts 2:17). Maybe Phillip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9) were
among those? Also, it seems that Junia is described as a co-apostle (Rom 16:7).
So what do we do with Paul’s prohibition? We can’t join an early feminist, evangelical
New Testament scholar, Paul Jewett, who didn’t try to exegete himself out of the passage but
simply proclaimed the apostle Paul in error.[9]
So what do I conclude? When biblical teaching conflicts with contrary historical
example, the instruction takes precedence. Yet in such cases I tend to refrain from
dogmatically rejecting those who side with biblically ordained examples.
Application. Paul’s meaning seems clear enough, but did God intend this approach to
marriage for today, or was it the cultural application of eternal truth to the transient culture of
that day?
There are several biblical texts which suggest that men should rule over women. But there
are also several texts that indicate that hereditary monarchs should rule over commoners and
that masters should rule over slaves All those texts reinforced the existing social order of
Paul’s first-century Roman world It may have seemed prudent to Paul to avoid relatively
less crucial challenges to the status quo.[10]
Biblical egalitarians contend that this teaching is no longer binding in the form Paul gave
it because Paul in the same context taught about slavery, and all agree that the institution of
slavery is not universal and permanent.
Thus, the parallel to slavery is crucial to the argument. Scripture does reveal that slavery
is not the ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites,
the law of Jubilee and other indications. Some might point to what Paul himself said in his
letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus—yet even here there is scholarly dispute. Some
contend that Onesimus was not a runaway slave. After all, there are no “flight” verbs, and the
runaway-slave interpretation did not arise until the fourth century; rather, he was an
estranged Christian brother who should be received back “no longer as a slave”—the same
language as Galatians 4:7: “you are no longer a slave, but a son.”[11] In fact, Paul encouraged
slaves to gain their freedom if they could (1 Cor 7:21). At any rate, most agree that the
institution of slavery was not established by God, was never commanded by God, was never
approved by God, and was only regulated by God to ameliorate the fallen human condition.
Therefore, the abolition of slavery is not only permissible by biblical standards but
demanded by them.
But the parallel between husband-wife relations and slave-master relations will not hold.
It would be necessary to advocate the abolition of both institutions, not the abolition of one
and the abolition of submission in the other. Actually, the instruction on relationships within
both institutions is normative. In a society where slavery exists, the Pauline instructions for
slave and master would be as fully authoritative now as the day he gave them. But the
institutions are not parallel. Marriage, unlike slavery, was God’s own idea, the fundamental
human relationship in his design. The institution of marriage is normative for all peoples of
all time, and therefore the instructions for how that marriage is to be conducted are as
normative as the institution itself. The parallel is being drawn by egalitarians between
the system of slavery and the conduct of marriage and thus is fallacious. The institutions are
not parallel: one God-ordained, the other human-initiated; one permanent, one crying out for
abolition.
Even if the parallel were valid, what of the relationship Paul deals with in Ephesians
6 (between the marital and slavery passages)—namely, parent-child? Some secular human-
rights activists are calling for the abolition of parental authority as well. Biblical egalitarians
do not agree that a child’s submission to her parents ought to be abridged (although they
would qualify this point). But if one parallel is mandatory, why not the other?
When Paul speaks of the husband as head of the home and of the wife as submissive in
her relationship, he is advocating what today we might call responsible leadership. God’s
instruction concerning the home, the church, government and the world of work all speak of
God’s own authority delegated to human authorities. These human authorities are not
established to provide unconditional acceptance with a nonjudgmental attitude, to preside
over a democratic vote, nor merely to give good advice. They are charged with responsibility
to legislate, administer, adjudicate. Though the Son is equal to the Father, he submits to the
Father’s will in his earthly mission (Jn 5:18-23, 30; 14:28; 1 Cor 15:24-38).
Does submission mean inferiority? Is Christ inferior or self-destructive because he prays
“not My will, but Yours be done?” Is the Christian, by yielding to the lordship of Jesus
Christ, in danger of self-destruction? Or under the Mosaic law, only Levites could be priests
—even though they were in every way equal to their fellow Israelites. Or in human
relationships, who is superior, an unknown college president or a world-renowned professor
who serves under him? Marriage calls for role distinction, but not for an inferior-superior
relationship. Interchangeability of roles may not bring freedom so much as confusion and
marriage failure.
Which is more important in holding a car together—the nuts or the bolts? What if all the
nuts went on strike because they were discriminated against and refused to serve if they
couldn’t function as bolts? They would be unfulfilled, the bolts also would be useless, but
worst of all the whole organization would come to pieces and its purpose go unfulfilled.
Jesus and Paul claimed that each person is of incalculable value, in whatever role God may
have for him. Freedom and fulfillment come from fitting one’s role, not demanding someone
else’s.
The Bible assigns the husband a role of loving leader and the wife the role of loyal
completer. The root problem in marriage is the unwillingness of each to accept the role for
which he or she was designed. Each has failed specifically in his and her own responsibility.
However, while the roles are clear in principle, these will certainly be expressed
differently in different cultures. A loyal support role for a Japanese wife might seem like
demeaning subservience for a Swedish wife; leadership in an Italian home might seem like
unloving arrogance in an American. But success in marriage is the magnificent gift of God to
those who accept, in whatever culture, the role designed by God.
Every fallen human culture stands under the judgment of God for its distortion of
marriage roles ordained of God. The task of the church is to listen carefully to the cries of the
oppressed and look more deeply to see what God would say. The quest for self-fulfillment in
our culture affects families, including within the church itself.
There is a legitimate alternative to accepting biblical marriage roles: Stay out of
marriage! There are many things worse than singleness, and one of them is a marriage filled
with tension because of role confusion. The single person is not bound by husbandly or
wifely roles and responsibilities. But if a person chooses to marry in the Lord, he is choosing
a specific role. What, then, are the roles of each as taught in Scripture?
Responsibility of the husband. Loving. The first—and predominant—responsibility for
the husband is to love his wife. And the standard in that relationship is the way Christ loved
the church (Eph 5:22-23). He loved the church through total sacrifice. Although no mere
mortal can attain this goal fully, this is the standard by which a man must ever evaluate his
performance as a husband. How does Christ love the church? There are many ways to
consider this, but think of what Paul alludes to, the dark hours on the cross when he gave his
life. Five of the seven sayings were on behalf of others.
For example, Jesus cried out, “Father, forgive them.” Forgiveness is the standard—and he
forgave even when they did not ask for it. Longsuffering, forbearance. Even when she usurps
my role? Yes, even when she crucifies you—that is God’s kind of loving.
Again, he said, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” He accepted the sinner as he
was, the ultimate failure, hanging on a cross. So with one’s wife, fastidious or sloppy,
disorganized or airbrush-perfect, young and beautiful or aging and overweight—acceptance.
By grace, introduce her to paradise. When caring for family, he said: “Mother, here is your
son” and “Son, here is your mother.” Incredibly selfless, kind and gentle, he makes provision
for all her needs, all her weaknesses, even while he himself is in mortal agony.
Leading. The husband is responsible for his wife, and this involves leadership. But
leadership is not arrogant machismo—he must never have a bullying or domineering spirit ( 1
Pet 3:7). Rather, he must gently lead, modeling the standard of loving well. In a Christian
American marriage characterized by open communication and loving sacrifice of personal
prerogatives, consensus is the normal way for decision making, and “pulling rank” is rarely
if ever necessary. Nevertheless, the husband is leader and responsible to God for the direction
the marriage goes. Even if the husband is more introverted, this should not be confused with
passivity. A quieter husband can still initiate when it comes to praying together or reading the
Bible with the family at the dinner table.
Providing and protecting. Closely associated with his wife’s spiritual welfare is provision
for the full development of a wife’s intellectual potential. For the husband to live on the
sacrifice of his young wife while he goes to school and then leave to her the full load of
caring for children at home with no opportunity for growth is to fail in loving provision. Her
emotional health is his responsibility as well. Provision physically means protection from
harm and from the assaults of the world outside. Of course, physical abuse is utterly out of
the question, and the husband must never touch his wife in anger—ever.
Of course there are other, more deadly, ways of harming—verbal abuse, psychological
wounds—and from all these his responsibility is to protect her. If any home is caught up in
un-Christlike behavior, the wife should seek outside help if the husband is not man enough
and Christian enough to seek it.
Another physical provision is for sexual fulfillment (1 Cor 7:3-5). The husband who is
consistently gratified sexually but does not take the time and care to provide fulfillment for
his wife wrongs her grievously. Radical for Paul’s day was to say that the husband’s body
belongs to his wife (1 Cor 7:4). True mutual sexual intimacy enhances and nurtures relational
intimacy in marriage.
Material provision is a husband’s responsibility (1 Tim 5:8). This does not mean that the
wife may not earn income, nor that it is wrong for her to earn more than he does or provide
more for the family from her estate. But these blessings do not relieve him of ultimate
responsibility.
Finally, provision includes social relationships. A husband may not dictate the extent of
his wife’s social involvement outside the home.
Limits of responsibility. Although loyalty to one’s wife takes precedence over loyalty to
parents, to children, or to anyone else, loyalty to God takes highest precedence. When and
how is one to “hate his wife” (Lk 14:26) or behave as if he were unmarried (1 Cor 7:29)?
A new idolatry has crept into evangelical thinking, the idolatry of family. All resources of
time and money are reserved for family above church, family above service to God, family
above work, family above national security. This attitude has come as a reaction to earlier
attitudes that put wife and children last. Correction was desperately needed back then. But
there are times when the interests of the kingdom of God demand that a husband “hate” his
wife and children—that is, that he choose to sacrifice some potential benefit of theirs for the
sake of fulfilling God’s purposes in the world. The order of Scripture is clear: self-sacrifice
as needed for the welfare of wife and children; family sacrifices as needed for the welfare of
the kingdom of God. On the other hand, we must take care not to pit family against God, but
rather to work to serve God together—such as showing hospitality and taking in foster
children or adopting them.
Responsibility of the wife. Loving. The first responsibility of the wife, as of the husband,
is to live in love (Tit 2:4-5). In biblical terms this means to consistently choose to act for the
welfare of the other at whatever personal sacrifice. When both partners are committed to this
way of life, the vast majority of marital problems are solved.
Managing the home. “Do you work or stay at home?” What a question to ask a mother!
Being a stay-at-home mom is a demanding full-time job. She is a “worker at home” (Tit 2:5).
Though very gratifying, this task is often far more demanding and emotionally draining than
an office job! Paul uses the term oikodespotēs—a manager of the home (1 Tim 5:14). Though
this task is in conflict with much contemporary Western thinking, Paul clearly states that the
wife is responsible to maintain the home (see also Proverbs 31, which is not in the form of a
command but of a description of an ideal wife). This principle does not imply that a loving
husband will refuse to participate in household responsibilities, but that the primary
responsibility is the wife’s.
Loyal completing. Her role is to be a complement to her husband. She is the accompanist
providing for a successful team performance through reinforcing her husband. “Submission”
includes honor and obedience (Eph 5:22-33; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
In a modern, liberated society, this often is a cross a wife is unwilling to bear. By
rejecting it, however, she does not find freedom and fulfillment, but diminishing fulfillment,
if not destruction, of that which might have been her most precious possession. The
sacrificial love demanded of the husband is precisely the response a “natural-born” leader
does not want, and the submission demanded of the wife is exactly what the proud,
autonomous person does not want. Actually, the standard is higher for the husband, if
anything. Christ’s kind of loving is far more demanding of sacrifice than Sarah’s kind of
submission.
There are exceptions to the law of submission. No Christian woman may obey a husband
who would cause her to sin. Leadership in any such direction must be rejected. On the other
hand, if she is forced to do wrong, it seems that God holds the husband responsible, not the
wife (Num 30:15). I assume Sapphira was not forced by Ananias to lie about their gift
in Acts 5:1-11 since God certainly held her responsible. Furthermore, if conditions obtain
that would make a divorce legitimate on biblical terms, a wife is not bound. Finally, on the
basis of the Bible authorization of self-defense, I hold that a woman who is in physical
danger or whose children are in physical danger may remove herself and her children from
such danger. Some separation is not only justified but demanded.
Sex. The wife, like the husband, is to be available for the husband’s sexual needs (1 Cor
7:4). Creative partners will find ever growing ways to pleasure each other. Paul did not want
Christians tempted outside the home by lack of sexual fulfillment inside the home.
Egalitarianism (Copan’s Perspective)
In contrast to my fine coauthor, I see Scripture advocating a view that encourages
mutuality without a hierarchy based on gender (the “egalitarian” view). In
marriage, both husband and wife are responsible for important decision-making matters. And
in various areas one spouse may defer to the insights and skills of the other. For example,
consider the traditional expectations of the wife “managing the home”; the husband may
have more of an aesthetic eye, be a more enthusiastic cook, have better organizational skills,
and be more of a “green thumb.” In such cases, spouses would be foolish not to be flexible
about roles that permit them to benefit from their respective gifts. The most prominent
description of an ideal wife in all of Scripture is Proverbs 31. There God approves of a wife
who engages in leadership outside the home; she takes economic and charitable initiative.
This suggests that God approves of the husband’s leadership in a way that also applies to the
wife.
In the New Testament, we have mutuality without hierarchy. For example, Paul and Luke
break with Greek custom, identifying Priscilla’s name before her husband’s in every passage
about their ministry together, including their instructing the great preacher Apollos in the
way of the Lord more accurately (Acts 18:26). In Romans 16, Paul makes clear his approval
of women in church leadership: seven of the ten people he names—and identifies their
ministry—are women; two of the three men he names here are listed with their wives as a
couple active in ministry; and the only person identified by name in the New Testament who
has a title of local church leadership is a woman, “Phoebe, deacon of the church of
Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1 NIV). Indeed, Paul refers to Junia (Rom 16:7)—a female name, not a
male one (Junias), as some translations misleadingly suggest—alongside Andronicus. Paul
calls them “my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles.”
Not a few scholars conclude that Junia is herself regarded as an apostle—in the sense of
“missionary” (cf. Phil 2:25, where Epaphroditus is an “apostle”).
The subject of both Paul’s lists of qualifications of overseers (1 Tim 3:1-7) and elder (Tit
1:6-9) is “anyone” (1 Tim 3:1, 5; Tit 1:6), and neither list has any masculine pronouns (he,
his, him) or anything else that would exclude women, contrary to most English translations
(although CEV and CEB translate them correctly without these masculine pronouns). And
even complementarian scholars such as Thomas Schreiner, Douglas Moo and Gordon
Hugenberger acknowledge that the phrase “one woman man” does not exclude women from
these offices.
As we read the New Testament, it is clear that Christ is the model for all Christians, not
just husbands (cf. 1 Cor 11:1; Gal 4:19; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Pet 2:21). There are twelve issues
related to husband-wife relationships in 1 Corinthians 7, and all of them indicate mutuality
and reciprocity, including spiritual leadership.
Aside from the woman’s bodily design for bearing and nursing children, social science
studies show that there is far greater disparity among women than between women and men
on average as regards competence to care for children and bond with them, in nurturing
dispositions, and in relational insights.[12] Some women have risen to the challenge of
meeting the same-strength competencies of men for, say, the task of firefighting. It just
makes sense that husbands and wives should, with mutual agreement and flexibility each
assume the sometimes-overlapping responsibilities for which they are physically,
psychologically and even vocationally suited and in which they are interested and can
flourish—without, of course, compromising the children’s parental care and well-being. At a
couple of points in our married life, my “excellent wife” Jacqueline was the main
breadwinner—once right after my seminary training and another time during my PhD
program so that I could be a full-time student, which afforded me more time with our young
children. It seems to me that one should not simply assume exclusive roles.
Below I give an embarrassingly brief overview of key texts and topics related to gender
responsibilities.
“No male and female.” In Galatians 3:28, Paul cites Genesis 1:27 that there is “no male
and female” in Christ. It appears that Paul isn’t simply focusing on one’s standing before
God to the exclusion of relationships in the church. That is, social, economic and sexual
barriers “before God” are not only eliminated with regard to salvation, but also in the
church’s relationships as well. To speak of “fixed gender roles” or “non-interchangeable
roles” seems to add confusion to what Paul is saying here.
Think of how Paul rebuked Peter in Antioch (Gal 2) because Peter had acted as though
Jewish-Gentile divisions were to be maintained within the church. This rebuke suggests that
more than “salvation before God” is at issue, affecting a range of relationships within the
church. The upshot of Paul’s message is that in society, there may be Jew-Gentile, slave-free
and male-female divisions, but not in Christ—and not in his body, the church. We should add
that Paul is not eliminating gender distinctions between male and female, nor does Paul open
wide the gate to endorse sinful behavior (“there is neither adulterer or non-adulterer,
homosexual or non-homosexual”).
Some may claim that an egalitarian view does not take biblical authority seriously. It
seems to me that the matter is one of hermeneutics (interpretation) rather than authority. For
example, which text(s) should be foundational for our consideration—say, Galatians
3:28 or 1 Timothy 2? True, it’s not always easy to sort out what is cultural and what is
normative. However, it seems to me that Galatians 3:28 is a more fundamental, general text
whereas 1 Timothy’s concerns regarding women are situation specific. First Timothy
addresses a particular problem involving outspoken, misled “liberated” women who are
dishonoring their marriages and husbands; they are putting down the tasks of childbearing
and being (what we call today) a “stay-at-home mom.”
Or again, why should we treat women’s “learning in quietness” (1 Tim 2:13) as
permanently relevant, but not a major portion of the same book about rules to help materially
support widows over sixty or to require young widows to get married ( 1 Tim 5)? Starting
with the priority of one text over another should not simply be assumed but defended.[13]
Creation and fall. As I see it, the creation text of Genesis 1–2 does not give man inherent
authority over woman. Rather, both man and woman are created in the image of God (Gen
1:26-27) and together receive dominion over animals and the rest of creation (Gen 1:28;
cf. Ps 8). Note too that the man was made after the animals, which would seem to undermine
an argument for hierarchy based on chronological priority. Even when the man (Heb ’îš)
“names” his wife woman (Heb ’išâ), this is a joyful expression of relatedness, not a sign of
superiority. And woman comes from man’s side—an equal. Furthermore, no individual
“roles” were assigned to them before the fall—only co-ruling with God and worshiping him
together. But after the fall, the tendency would be for the man to rule the woman: “Your
desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen 3:16). In the post-fall Old
Testament world, patriarchy would become a social structure that departed from the equality
at creation—just as warfare and servitude were interwoven with ancient Near Eastern life.
But as the Scriptures progress, God’s ideal of the male-female equality established at Genesis
1–2—to be restored in the new creation—is viewed as normative.
Silence, head-coverings and public worship. Paul indicates that in public worship,
women can pray and prophesy (1 Cor 11:5, 13; Acts 2:18). (The New Testament gift of
prophecy is revelatory—reporting what God brings to mind.) Even so, in the same book Paul
exhorts women to be silent (1 Cor 14:34-35). Some scholars view this as referring to a
prohibition as a matter of citing a false prophecy; others argue that this was a scribe’s
insertion in the margin of the text. Even if it is original, one should note Craig Keener’s
observation: “Whatever else Paul may mean . . . he cannot mean complete silence, because
earlier in the same letter he allowed women to pray and prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5). The
problem seems not to be teaching, but rather that the women are learning—too
loudly.”[14] What then is the “silence” part about? Paul urges women to show respect to
husbands in public worship. Being in a less-formal household setting, they are not to ask
interrupting questions that intrude on the worship of others but should rather confer with
their husbands when at home.
Another way of showing respect includes a woman wearing her hair “up”—the style
worn by the prudent, virtuous woman—rather than the immodest, free-flowing hair common
among prostitutes who were advertising their charms. This free-flowing style had
increasingly come to be adopted by the “new,” independent woman in the Mediterranean
world—an ancient version of the “women’s liberation movement.” Unfortunately, this
contentious and immodest spirit was creeping into the church.[15]
“Head”—leader or source? As for this disrespectful behavior at Corinth, Paul was
prompted to remind women to respect men. Why? Because men and women need each other.
Paul says that woman was formed from man (Gen 2:21-23) and was made to be a “helper”
(‘ēzer) for him. This term “helper,” as we’ve seen, is not one of lower status, since this term
is used of God himself. Likewise, the man should show respect to the woman since man is
not separate from woman (1 Cor 11:11); indeed, every man comes through woman (1 Cor
11:12). First Corinthians refers to the mutuality and interdependence of man and woman.
What about references to “headship”? Although we usually think in terms
of authority, the term actually emphasizes “source” or “origin.” Christ himself is “head” or
the originator of creation—the one “through whom are all things” (1 Cor 8:6 ESV). He is the
head of the body, holding together its various functions (Col 2:19). And when Paul says that
“the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3 NIV), he means that Jesus originated from—was sent
from—God (Jn 8:42; 16:27-28; 17:8).
This use of “head” could be compared to our use of, say, the “head” of the Nile River
being Lake Victoria; the lake is the originating point of the river. This “origination” idea is
supported by 1 Corinthians 11:12. Paul is basically saying this: “As the woman originates
from the man, so also the man has his birth or origination through the woman; and all things
originate from God.” Paul isn’t speaking of a male-over-female hierarchy in the home—or
even in worship, as both male and female can freely pray and prophesy. Rather, he is saying
that in Christ and the new creation, we have a restoration of equality and mutual
interdependence between men and women.[16]
In my own previous thinking, I had assumed that “head” (kephalē) meant “leader, boss,
authority.” On closer inspection, I found that Paul uses “head” to mean “source,” and he does
so in conjunction with “savior/preserver” (sotēr) in the key passage of Ephesians 5:23. The
Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon of native Greek usage lists forty-seven metaphorical translations
of “head”; interestingly, none of them means “leader” or “authority.” What’s more, the
translators of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) typically avoided rendering the
Hebrew word rō’š(“leader”) as kephalē in order to indicate “leader”; they apparently did not
think translating it that way was suitable. In addition, many church fathers affirmed the
meaning of kephalē as “source” rather than “authority”; these fathers include Cyril of
Alexandria, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Athanasius, Eusebius and Ambrosiaster.[17]
Submission. Ephesians 5:21 gives a revolutionary exhortation to believers to “submit to
one another” (NIV). What is “submission”? Submission has the idea of voluntarily yielding
in love. We see the mutuality of submission elsewhere in Ephesians—the idea of bearing
with one another in love (Eph 4:2), of being kind, tenderhearted and forgiving toward one
another (Eph 4:32). Prophets submit or lovingly yield themselves to one another, but they do
this without being subordinates (1 Cor 14:32). When the church functions properly, its
members place themselves under other brothers or sisters in Christ. Indeed, Christ
voluntarily yields to the church in love by serving her (Mt 20:25-28; Lk 22:25-27; cf. Jn
13:1-17). Christ “submits” to unjust treatment (1 Pet 2:18–3:1). Likewise, wives yield to
husbands with respect and husbands yield to wives in sacrificial, loving service—again, note
the repeated husband-wife mutuality throughout 1 Corinthians 7.
But, isn’t Christ the “head” of the church (Eph 5:23)? And shouldn’t the church submit to
Christ’s authority? Yes, of course. Christ is the sovereign Lord, to whom every knee must
bow. I noted above that “head” is better rendered “source” rather than “authority” for several
reasons. And the very phrase “Savior of the body” reinforces this point: “head” and “Savior
of the body” are roughly equivalent here. That is, the head-body relationship indicates that
Christ is the source of nourishment, and the husband—the “head” of his wife—cares for his
body by nourishing and caring for it, as he should his wife (Eph 5:29; Col 1:18-20; 2:19).
What of other “submitting” relationships—of slaves to masters and children to parents?
Unlike the more egalitarian West, Roman husbands/fathers had near-absolute authority over
their (typically less-educated) wives, over their children (even into adulthood) and over their
slaves. So when Paul talks about submission for all of them, is Paul endorsing this near-
absolute authoritative patriarchal structure? No, he is not. If Paul intended that adult children
remain under the authority of their Roman fathers, this would go against Genesis 2:24, where
a man leaves father and mother to cleave to his wife and become one flesh. Indeed, if we
apply Paul’s household rules to our modern era, we cannot properly speak of children having
a “fixed role” throughout their lives. A child’s role changes with age: as parents become old,
children take on a more parent-like role; as children grow up and have their own children,
they (and not the grandparents) takes the major responsibility for directing their own
children.
Likewise, Paul doesn’t endorse Roman slavery (Eph 6:1), but he still gives instructions
for those trapped in it; in fact, in 1 Corinthians 7 he urges slaves to get free if they can. And
one would most likely not obtain freedom if he were insubordinate. Paul
doesn’t endorse patriarchy, but neither does he disregard it. He focuses on the mutuality of
life in Christ.
Ephesians 5 emphasizes a certain mutuality between husband and wife rather than a one-
way relationship. So, the wife submits to her husband by respecting him, while the husband
acts as a slave in loving and serving his wife—just as Christ took the role of a footwashing
slave to serve his disciples and the church.
What of 1 Peter 3? Sarah does still “obey” Abraham and call him “lord” or “sir” (1 Pet
3:6). First, keep in mind that the husband is to “honor” his wife, who is a “fellow heir of the
grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). Second, these believing wives have courageously defied the Roman
way and have not given way to fear (1 Pet 3:6)—that is, they have broken with the worship
practices of their pagan husbands to follow Christ. Third, Peter writes against the backdrop
of Roman husbands as having absolute authority in the home, and he does not want the
Christian faith to be understood by unbelieving husbands as a tool of social rebellion.
Clearly, the unbelieving husbands are not “spiritual heads” of their Christian wives; in fact,
believing wives had defied the culture by refusing to adopt the deities or worship practices of
their unbelieving spouses. It seems that many couples in the West—Christian or not—are
operating at a fairly egalitarian level already; they would find the language of “obeying” or
calling the husband “sir” or “lord” quite foreign, implicitly rejecting the patriarchal demands
of ancient Roman—and, in the case of Sarah, ancient Near Eastern—culture. I am not here
implying that cultural norms trump Scripture’s authority; I am simply noting that
complementarian evangelicals in the West do not themselves follow the “Sarah model” of
obedience.
“I do not permit a woman to teach.” Paul uses the same argument both in 1 Corinthians
(where women dishonored their husbands by letting their hair down) and 1 Timothy (where
women assumed authority they did not rightfully have to teach men). In 1 Corinthians
14:34 Paul says: “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to
speak, but are to subject themselves.” And in 1 Timothy 2:12 he says: “But I do not allow a
woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
Taking a step back, we get some context from Paul in Acts 20:17-35 where he warned
that false teachers would rise up from within the church at Ephesus—where Timothy would
eventually serve—and Timothy did come to face this very problem himself (1 Tim 1:3).
These false teachers had quite an influence on women, especially younger widows, whose
houses these false teachers would enter;[18] they would “captivate weak women . . . led on by
various impulses” (2 Tim 3:6-7). Moreover, these widows not only were idle but would go
from house to house—or from house church to house church (?)—as “[purveyors] of
foolishness and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention” (1 Tim 5:13). It
seems that Paul is speaking to a unique situation that requires drastic action. Note the
parallels between 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16 and how the concerns in each
passage are nearly identical (see table 20.1).
It is no coincidence the false teaching is called “old wives tales” (1 Tim 4:7). So we have
a unique situation that 1 Timothy addresses—one that calls for dramatic action. Notice that
Paul isn’t appealing to creation to justify a male-over-female role hierarchy. If this were so,
this might make it seem that women are more easily deceived than men. Instead, Paul is
using this as an illustration, a parallel case, of what was happening in Ephesus: just as Eve
was deceived by Satan in the garden (Gen 2:14), so Christian women in Ephesus are being
deceived by demonically inspired false teachers who promoted asceticism; they disparage the
body, and they deny the appropriate place of marriage and a woman’s caring for children in
the home (1 Tim 4:1-4; 5:3-16; cf. 2 Tim 3:6-7). However, this kind of vocation is
appropriate and honorable for women, although Paul does not say this exhausts the vocation
of a woman—only that it is legitimate and honorable and affirming of their womanhood.
When Paul says, “I do not permit [ouk epitrepō] a woman to teach or have authority
[authentein] over a man,” he uses two terms that are commonly misunderstood. First, “I do
not permit” is not used in the New Testament or Greek Old Testament to refer to a perpetual
or ongoing prohibition; Paul is not saying, “I will not/never permit.” Rather, the sense is “I
am not in the presently ongoing situation permitting”—namely, this is a unique, ad hoc
exhortation to address serious problems in Ephesus, many of which concern women (twenty-
one verses in 1 Timothy specifically relate to women—a very high proportion).[19]Second, the
verb authentein means “to assume a stance of independent authority”[20] or “to dominate.”
The sense of the instruction is this: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating
way but to have a quiet demeanor.”[21]
Table 20.1. Parallels Between 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16
1 Timothy 2:8-15
1 Timothy 5:6, 11-15
2:9-10: Concern about dress and
adornment, which goes hand in hand
with 1 Tim 2:11-12 (the problem of
disrespecting husbands and the need for
proper demeanor). Whether
insubordination or dressing seductively,
these women are “playing loose” with
societal norms.a
5:11-15: This woman of concern “gives
herself to wanton pleasure” (5:6) and desires
to marry (outside the faith) (5:11-12).
2:10: “good works, as is proper for
women making a claim to godliness.”
5:10: “devoted herself to every good work.”
5:13: “[younger widows] also learn to be idle,
as they go around from house to house [house
church to house church?]; and not merely
idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking
about things not proper to mention.” (See 2
Tim 3:6: false teachers “enter into households
and captivate weak women weighed down
with sins, led on by various impulses.”)
2:14: “the woman being deceived [by
Satan], fell into transgression.”
15: “some [women] have already turned aside
to follow Satan” (cf. 1 Tim 4:1-3: “deceitful
spirits and doctrines of demons,” including
forbidding marriage).
2:15: “But women will be preserved
through the bearing of children if they
continue in faith and love and sanctity
with self-restraint.”
14: “Therefore, I want younger widows to get
married, bear children, keep house, and give
the enemy no occasion for reproach.”
aGordon D. Fee, “The Great Watershed—Intentionality and Particularity/Eternality: 1
Timothy 2:8-15 as a Test Case,” in Gospel and Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), p.
58.
I could go on and address other passages.[22]While some readers may not be persuaded by
this brief discussion (although I would encourage exploration of the sources I have used), I
hope this section at least indicates that the complementarian-egalitarian issue is more
complex than it may appear at first and that that the debate is not one over biblical authority
but of attempts at fair-minded, God-honoring interpretation.[23]
Responsibilities of the Parents
Reproduction. The blessing “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7) seems to win
the approval of the psalmist (Ps 127:3, 5; 128:3) and Paul the apostle (1 Tim 2:15; 5:14).
This is certainly God’s ordinary plan, but is it sinful to avoid pregnancy?
Birth control. Some claim that the earth cannot bear an ever-expanding population.
However, the most densely populated areas are in prosperous countries such as the
Netherlands, Belgium and Japan. In fact, although the earth’s population is at nearly seven
billion at the time of writing, let’s say that the earth reaches a population of nine billion
people. In that case, we could fit the entire world into the state of Texas (262,134 square
miles of land area) with each person (man, woman and child) having 850 square feet for
himself or herself—and the rest of the earth would be empty.[24] At any rate, we find nothing
in Scripture either in direct command or in principle that prohibits the use of contraceptives.
Onan’s sin in Genesis 38:8-10 was not an attempt at “birth control,” but it was a selfish act—
a refusal to raise up a line for a deceased brother (cf. Deut 25:5-6).
The Roman Catholic Church continues to take a very strong stand against any form of
birth control by artificial means (as distinct from abstinence and the “rhythm” method).
According to the 1930 papal encyclical Casti Conubii, artificial contraception is criminal and
intrinsically immoral—a view reaffirmed by subsequent popes. (Many Protestants until
World War II held similar positions.) The rationale? That marriage is a means to an end—
namely, the generation and raising of children.
As we read Scripture and reflect on this topic, we ourselves do not view “artificial” birth
control as being morally problematic. And what is “natural”? Even faithful Catholics using
the “natural” rhythm method—with tapes, thermometers and tubes—testify that that this is
anything but “natural.”[25] But this is not to endorse all alleged “birth control.” Some pills
(e.g., RU 486) are abortifacients and thus morally wrong (we will explore this in chapter
twenty-two), while others can be a health risk to the woman. And using birth control to
practice “safe sex” in immoral relationships illustrates the tragic division between marriage
and sex. True “safe sex” comes when we save sex for the loving, secure boundaries of
faithful monogamous marriage.
Those who oppose contraception by appealing to “natural law” tend to isolate
an episode of sexual intercourse. But this ignores the larger saga or narrative of the marriage
itself. The integrity of an entire lifetime of a marriage may call for making judgments about
when to have children, with the help of the Lord (Gen 4:1). It would seem that “spacing”
children at times can be wise—during family transitions such as moving or perhaps
completing one’s schooling to be better equipped to care for the little ones God has entrusted
to a couple.
Traditionally, when a couple was ready to marry, they were also ready for children. But
today we see a different picture. Indeed, birth control in marriage can have an immature,
even sinister, side: it does not welcome children as a gift, but instead insulates a couple from
children—perhaps for self-centered pursuits of affluence, travel and avoiding an
inconvenient lifestyle. The burden of proof would be on those refraining from having
children: church planting in a dangerous setting or serious health concerns for the mother
would qualify. Some may refrain out of fear: “I don’t want to bring a child into this scary
world”—a mantra that has been repeated throughout the ages—or “What if my kids don’t
turn out right?” or “What about college tuition bills?” This mindset is ultimately a failure of
hope—a refusal to trust in a faithful, sovereign God. As we noted, parents need children
more than children need parents; children in very significant ways “raise” parents. As one
ethicist writes, “In childbearing we forfeit many choices—and find joy!”[26]
What of sterilization—permanent birth control? Sterilization is the same kind of ethical
issue as contraception, and similar guidelines should be followed. In the nature of the case,
since none of us is infallible in knowing the will of God or even in knowing our own future
circumstances or disposition, a decision to be sterilized should be taken with great care.
Adoption. Adoption is a wonderful solution for the husband and wife who believe they
are called of God to such a ministry, whether they have their own birth children or not. Just
as there is no biblical ground for hesitancy in this, there is no mandate to adopt. But just
think of the impact the church can have by opening its doors to foster care and adoption,
often to children who have been rejected or neglected. Yes, there can be risks and challenges,
but, again, much joy as well. As a family, we (the Copans) can all attest to the rich blessing
of foster care as well as adoption. Scripture commands us to care for the fatherless. As the
touching movie I Am Sam reminds us, we in the Christian community can band together to
be the supportive spiritual family for the fatherless—or needy families in general.
Sex selection and embryo testing. While the Bible does not address sex selection of
children, it is evil. This is can be carried out through identifying the sex of the unborn and
aborting the unwanted or committing infanticide after birth. We are seeing “gendercide” take
place on a horrific scale in places like China or India, where having sons is more financially
attractive to couples: the son is expected to look after the parents in their old age; to marry a
daughter requires a dowry to the groom’s family; and so on. But now in these places—where
males dramatically outnumber females—vast numbers of men cannot marry.
What about in utero screening for other reasons? Thousands of expectant mothers in the
United States undergo embryo testing—often with tragic outcomes. Ninety percent of unborn
children diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. So are others with cystic fibrosis and
similar genetic abnormalities.[27] While it is important for parents to prepare well for the
future birth of their child, such a destructive narcissism runs utterly contrary to the calling of
parents to welcome and care for their children—just as God has lovingly embraced helpless,
fallen sinners and welcomed them into his family (cf. Ezek 16:1-6; Rom 5:6).
Loving. Parents are to love the children they beget (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; Tit 2:4)—an
example of the heavenly Father’s sacrificial love (Eph 3:14-15). Typically, children who are
loved will have a greater grasp of God’s love for them. This love for children must be spoken
and reinforced through demonstration (1 Jn 3:18).
The ultimate unloving act is divorce—a terrifying, destructive force in a child’s life
because, no matter what the explanation, the child knows that at least one—and maybe both
—parent does not love her enough to make the home “work.” Indeed, the best gift parents
can give children is to love one another well. When this is visibly expressed and strongly felt,
an atmosphere of security is created, and the parents become role models for all of life’s
relationships.
Modeling. Every Christian is expected to be full of good works and to model Christlike
living (Mt 5:16; Eph 5:1-2). In a special way, parents are responsible to live authentic
Christian lives before their children (Prov 23:26), as they provide the strongest human
influence in a child’s life. Modeling includes humbling ourselves and asking forgiveness of
our children. It also includes not only exhorting our children to be a blessing to others, but to
make sure that as parents we ourselves are a blessing as well.
Providing. Parents are responsible for their dependent children. They are to provide
materially, physically, socially, spiritually and mentally (education). In this way children will
grow in wisdom and stature, in favor with God and fellow human beings (Lk 2:52).
Providing for the family in our society takes money, and earning money typically takes time
away from home. Yet the care for children requires time spent with them. How can this
double demand on parental time be reconciled?
Whenever possible, children in their earliest years up to the start of school, should have a
full-time parent at home. (In light of our complementarian-egalitarian discussion above,
some may prefer “mother” and others “parent” in the present section.) As we noted earlier,
while we greatly admire and respect those single moms (and dads) who try to work to
financially support their families and to be loving parents as best they can, a woman can’t
capably be a full-time mother and have a full-time outside job without compromising the
children’s well-being. Raised by strangers in a daycare setting that parents can’t oversee or
observe, children will get the “leftovers” of the parents’ day; the parents will be tired and not
at their best and, out of guilt, will likely indulge them by substituting material gifts for time
and by not firmly disciplining them. All things being equal, who can care for a child better
than her own parent? And what better gift to give a child than time spent together?
This is not to say that a stay-at-home mother or father can’t find creative ways to generate
income from home or work part-time as, say, a physical therapist, counselor or consultant.
Young children should have the stability of a parent at home at all times; this gives children
structure, security and bonding with their parents so that they will not be limping along
through life as adults. Children need to be welcomed as a high priority, but many of them do
not feel valued and get shortchanged because both parents are pursuing careers and
neglecting their little “loans from the Lord.” Full-time parenting is an investment for the next
generation’s well-being. If one is a part-time parent now, it’s likely that one will be a part-
time parent the rest of one’s life.
Increasingly, both parents need to work to maintain financial viability. In most societies
of the past, mothers worked outside the home, just as the ideal mother of Proverbs 31. But
until the Industrial Revolution (a terrible time for mothers and children), that work was in the
field or forest, with the whole family participating so that the caring and nurturing continued
unabated. How do we solve the dilemma?
The attitude of parents toward one another and toward the children as well as time spent
together—not simply “quality time”—help create an atmosphere in which children can
flourish. And children need both parents to enhance their development. As sociologist David
Popenoe notes, “children have dual needs that must be met [by the complementarity of male
and female parenting styles]: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for
challenge and the other for support.”[28] If parents are absent, what is the motive? Why does
the father work such long hours? Why does the mother seek outside employment? Is the
father working hard to try to “prove his love” through tireless labor and lavish gifts when all
the children ultimately want is him? Or he may simply be materialistic or just selfish in
wanting to spend time elsewhere than with his family. These attitudes undermine the family’s
well-being.
Christian workers sometimes neglect family responsibility for a higher motive—
advancing the kingdom of God. There are times when such a motive is legitimate, but other
times it may be to escape the challenges and failures of home life. Brother Yun, the
remarkable Chinese church leader who now lives in the West, points this out. After his own
neglect of his family, he came to see that he needed to honor God by cherishing his family
relationships.[29] If a man is celibate, like Paul, that is one thing, but if he is already married,
part of his ministry call is already settled—his home. To neglect this is to risk everything
since church ministry is reserved for those who succeed in the responsibilities of the home (1
Tim 3:2-5; Tit 1:6-9).
And why does the mother seek outside employment during the hours a child is at home—
or ought to be? If economic survival is the question, the choice is right, but “economic
survival” and a better standard of living are not synonymous. Perhaps work outside the home
boosts a sense of self-worth; after all, promotions and pay raises are a “measurable success.”
Successes at work are often shorter range, tangible and more immediately gratifying—unlike
successes at home that are more long range, often imperceptible and not noticed by outsiders.
It is a very high calling to manage a home and train up young disciples in the Lord—to raise
up a generation that can have a leavening, brightening effect in society and the world. The lie
is that success in the marketplace proves one’s value.
Instructing. The atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious instruction for
children is tantamount to “child abuse”; it leads to fear, guilt, inhibitions, low self-confidence
and the like. The secularist parent is best positioned to guide children.[30] Now, it’s one thing
to make a claim; it’s another to justify it. Despite Dawkins’s alleged commitment to science,
he is out of touch with the evidence. Sociologist Christian Smith spearheaded a large-scale
study of American teenagers (3,290 of them), and they were categorized into the devoted and
the regulars (who were predominantly Protestant and Catholic Christians) along with
the sporadic and the disengaged. What impact did lack of religious upbringing or religious
(Christian) involvement have on teenagers?
The more these teens moved in the disengaged direction, (a) the more they were involved
in drugs, drinking, pornography and “action” video games; (b) the more poorly they did at
school, cut classes, and ended up getting suspended or expelled; (c) the more bad-tempered
and rebellious toward parents they were; and (d) the earlier they became sexually involved,
including the number of partners and age of their first sexual encounter. By contrast, the
more teens moved in the devoted direction, (a) the greater their sense of well-being and
likelihood in planning for the future, sense of purpose, freedom from depression, satisfaction
with personal appearance, not feeling alone or invisible or guilty; (b) the closer they were to
their parents (and felt they had the right amount of freedom from them) and the better they
got along with other adults; (c) the more they believed in objective morality and were less
likely to lie to their parents or cheat at school; and (d) the more likely they were to care about
the poor and elderly and homeless, be concerned about racial justice, and participate in
volunteer work and leadership roles. In every category out of ninety-one variables, the more
teens moved in the devoted direction, the healthier their lives were. Given this evidence, it
appears that the disengaged parent, the secularist parent, would more likely be accused of
child abuse![31]
No wonder Scripture places a premium on teaching one’s children. And this is to be done
in all kinds of settings: “when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you
lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your
gates” (Deut 11:19-20 NIV; cf. Deut 6:6-9). Parents are to train up children in the way they
should go (Prov 22:6). Both parents have an obligation before God to nurture children in the
reading, discussing and application of Scripture as a daily part of family life; this should
include praying and singing together. It includes modeling and instruction about relationships
with others. The Christian family should be something of a church in miniature—training
grounds for the church’s community life and worship as well as serving together to meet the
needs of others locally and around the world. This kind of on-the-ground discipleship
training is non-negotiable—a cornerstone of family life.
Disciplining. Proverbs speaks straightforwardly about discipline: “He who spares the rod
hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (Prov 13:24 RSV). Not to
discipline—and discipline beginning at an early age—is to wish for a child’s destruction
(Prov 19:18). Discipline can help drive foolishness from a child (Prov 22:15; 23:13-14) and
keep him from shaming his family (Prov 29:15; 29:17). So discipline is for a child’s own
sake, but family honor is not unimportant (God does not want his name blasphemed among
the Gentiles).
The “rod” is a symbol of discipline in Proverbs. It is a broad-ranging term—a branch,
stick or some instrument fashioned from a branch. Corporal punishment was to be painful,
but not severe (“he will not die,” Prov 23:13); it should be carried out in a loving spirit (Prov
3:12), not with uncontrolled anger or as an attempt to humiliate the child. It should not
exasperate or discourage (Col 3:21). Furthermore, corporal punishment is not the only means
of discipline. As we see in Proverbs, discipline can range from warning and rebuke to
corporal punishment. Some children may need little or no corporal discipline; a stern rebuke
may suffice. Perhaps the form of discipline will vary from culture to culture, but the
necessity of it is clear.
In reaction to child abuse many have gone to ridiculous extremes in the name of “child
rights.” For example, in 1979, Sweden’s parliament prohibited “humiliating treatment” such
as cutting TV rights and confining a child to her bedroom; children could even sue for
“divorce” from incompatible parents. The Bible rejects such a mindset. First, discipline
should be understood in advance; that is, it should be predictable, not capricious—a matter
of cause and effect: “If you do X, then you can expect Y.” It should also be prompt (not, “I’m
going to count to ten, and if you don’t come to me, I’ll . . .”). Moreover, parents must
be consistent rather than haphazard (“Oh, I’ll just let it go this time. I’m too tired”).
Discipline, further, includes both parents adhering to the same approach to parenting, not
allowing a child to play off one parent against the other. Their approach should balance
“love” and “justice”—as opposed to the extremes of permissiveness and harshness. Parents
should be authorities without being authoritarian.
Homes must be parent-directed, not child-directed. Children must learn to adapt. It is
amazing how a two-year-old tyrant can make his football player father cower and cater to his
whims and desires. Especially relevant in a coarsened culture is the parents’ obligation to
train children in manners; they must insist on politeness, friendliness, helpfulness and
respect for the property of others. Parents let their children off the hook when adults greet
young ones who ignore gestures of friendliness (“he’s tired” or “she’s just being shy”). Not
to insist on a friendly reply and a handshake from children will hamper them later in life.
Indeed, children should be trained to be friendly, approachable and truly amiable; they can be
thus trained, but it takes a consistent effort. As actress Emma Thompson once said in an
interview, it is a form of “child abuse” not to teach children good manners; this is a failure to
prepare them for life. Believing parents must be intentional rather than passive or reactive.
They must train their children to be a blessing. And it cannot be emphasized enough that
children should be taught courtesy and loyalty first and foremost in the home, which then
overflows to relationships outside the home.
Courtesy and graciousness help minimize friction and open doors for relationship, not to
mention being a witness for the gospel. And even in the midst of disagreement, parents
should insist on courtesy. Tantrums, bad attitudes, muttering under one’s breath, rolling the
eyes, or slamming the door should be dealt with swiftly. Courtesy is a non-negotiable, and
parents themselves should model this as they engage with each other and with their children.
On the other hand, parents should avoid the creation of too many rules. Constant
confrontation on nonmoral, non-relational issues can cause discouragement or stir up a
rebellious spirit.
In the midst of discipline, parents must have a loving, open relationship with their
children. Children should know that discipline springs from love. Parents may need to ask
their children’s forgiveness for being overly harsh or critical. In Eastern cultures, parents
may insist on honor and respect, but when parental love and relationship are absent, the
respect will not be heartfelt, only external.
“Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it”
(Prov 22:6RSV). Note that this is a proverb, not a promise or guarantee. While environment
is important, Scripture rejects environmental determinism (Ezek 18:1-17). Children grow up
and make their life choices, but even rebels can return home (Lk 15:11-32). And in the end,
we can be encouraged that God’s providence is greater than parental failures, and we must
remember that God loves our children even more than we do.[32]
Responsibility of the Child
“Honor your father and your mother” (Ex 20:12) is the comprehensive statement of the
child’s responsibility. Our parents have given us life, and even if they prove unworthy in
other areas, we can be grateful to them for the gift of life.
Loving. “My son, give me your heart” (Prov 23:26 RSV) is the cry of every parent
worthy of the name. But there are some parents who shamefully abuse their children. Those
children can hardly respect their parents or follow them. But they can choose to act in a
loving way—and this may include confronting them about such wrongs. We may not feel
warm toward them, but we can pray for them and choose to do what is in their best spiritual
interest. Perhaps a way to honor abusive or alcoholic parents is to keep silent rather than
speak negatively about them before others. On the other hand, ignoring or covering up the
problem only enables them to carry on their harmful behavior without consequence.
Obeying. Children are to obey their parents (Eph 6:1; Col 3:20). Are there circumstances
in which this law does not apply? The command is conditioned on being “in the Lord.”
Though this is not clarified, this would include a young child’s refusal to disobey a parent’s
command if it required wrongdoing. However, if the child is strong-armed to comply, (the
greater) guilt would rest on the parent. For older children, Ezekiel 18 clearly enunciates that
there is personal responsibility on the part of each person before God. And parents are wise
to direct their children to intentionally place themselves under God’s authority as early as
possible, reminding them that they are ultimately accountable to him.
Another principle has to do with the question of when a man is to leave his father and
mother (Gen 2:24). This is more emotionally leaving rather than physically leaving—
although they are not altogether separate. Parental honor should continue throughout life, but
scriptural priority is given to one’s own marriage over that of one’s parents. Much grief and
marriage failure come from the sinful interference of in-laws and the sinful acceptance of
that interference on the part of the married son or daughter. Loyalties must shift, even though
honor continues, albeit in new manifestations. Even if one is not married, it seems that the
“leaving” at marriage serves as a helpful parallel: children should obey their parents so long
as they are dependent on them for their livelihood. This does not mean they cannot persuade
their parents while living under their roof, nor does it mean they reject their counsel and
experienced judgment when they are independent. Indeed, they are wise to embrace their
parents’ seasoned counsel throughout life’s journey!
However, in the final analysis grown children must make their own choices, particularly
in life—determining decisions in light of kingdom priorities; doing so may create division (a
“sword”) within families. We ourselves have seen this with believers with a Muslim or Hindu
background who have embraced Christ and consequently were rejected by their own flesh
and blood. Indeed, this may appear as though one “hates” one’s family (Mt 10:34-37; Lk
12:51-53; 14:26-27). To fulfill God’s will, it may be necessary to violate the will of the very
one we would most desire on earth to please. Christians do not make such choices lightly, nor
will they ever use them as an excuse to cover their own stubborn self-will (Mk 7:11).
Caring for parents in old age. The Lord arranged a beautiful solidarity of generations:
the parents have the privilege of caring for their children for the first decades of life, and the
children may have the privilege of caring for their parents for the last decades. Sometimes
there is a child who is dependent for a lifetime, and sometimes a parent becomes dependent
for what seems a lifetime; but the average responsibility of child for a parent is less than a
decade in contemporary America. No child should feel any sense of guilt for putting a parent
in an institution if that is truly the only place the parent can be cared for adequately. But the
multitudes of children who put away their parents for selfish reasons—often neglecting even
to keep in touch—violate the fifth commandment in a despicable way. “If any one does not
provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8 RSV).
Should not parents fully provide for their own old age and possible infirmity? Paul
teaches that parents should lay things in store for their children so as not to burden them ( 2
Cor 12:14). But parents who cannot provide for their old age, or parents who have not done
so, offer a wonderful opportunity for their children to demonstrate their love and loyalty and
gratitude for life itself and for all the sacrifice those parents have invested in them.
To resolve something of a tension here, parent should provide for their children as fully
as they are able until their children are independent, so they can, above all, invest in God’s
kingdom. To provide more for them often has the very opposite effect of that intended:
continued dependence on the efforts of others, lack of initiative, ingratitude, greedy sibling
conflict and a host of other evils spawned by one’s love of money (1 Tim 6:10). That said,
parents should not hesitate to provide prudently for their own old age as best they can.
One biblically authentic approach for parents, then, would be full provision for their
children to reach independence, prudent provision for their own retirement if they are able
and free of conscience to do so, and joyful trust in the Lord and in their children for any
further provision that may become necessary.
Such are the responsibilities of children for their parents: to honor, love, obey and
provide for them.
We have devoted more attention to the topic of sex, marriage and the home for several
reasons. In the first place, we have combined the consideration of two of the Ten
Commandments (the fifth and seventh). Furthermore, this topic is emphasized more than any
other ethical issue in Scripture. Finally, this is the area of life that seems to be most under
assault by the powers of evil. We seem most vulnerable here, and we, in dependence on
God’s Spirit, must think clearly and Christianly about such matters and to dedicate ourselves
to living out the gospel in our homes, whether as married or unmarried Christians. If we do
so, we will, by God’s grace, set back the powers of darkness and advance the kingdom of
God as yeast permeates a batch of dough (Mt 13:33).
Further Reading
Beck, James, and Craig L. Blomberg, eds. Women in Ministry: Two Views. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.
Köstenberger, Andreas, and Thomas Schreiner, eds. Women in the Church: An Analysis and
Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
McQuilkin, Robertson. A Promise Kept. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1998.
Payne, Philip. Man and Woman: One in Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Pierce, Ronald, and Rebecca Groothuis, eds. Discovering Biblical Equality:
Complementarity Without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.
Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Smith, Christian, and Melina L. Denton. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives
of American Teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
21Murder, Killing and Racism
You shall not murder.
Murder is considered the worst of all crimes more universally than any other, and at the
same time is the sin most universally practiced. How so? Christ does not let us get away with
restricting the law to those who slit throats or blow off heads, but includes hostile anger as
well (Mt 5:21-22). Violations of the sixth commandment cover a wide spectrum.
Forms of Killing
By including anger and verbal abuse in the category of murder, Jesus did not say or mean
that they were as evil as murder. But they are the same variety of sin and may not be excused
as mere human weakness. In fact, all sin, including murder, is rather like an onion. Beneath
the final act are lesser acts, and beneath all the acts is a corrupt heart. Murder is highly
visible, the full-grown sin, but when the outer layer is peeled away, various levels of violence
are seen as part of the same “onion,” and beneath the physical and verbal abuse is the heart
of anger, hatred, or failing to love. If the core of inadequate love is planted and allowed to
grow, the hateful activity will follow. And all of it falls under the judgment of God.
Murder. Some vegetarians have held that when God inscribed “You shall not kill” ( Ex
20:13 RSV) in stone at Sinai, he forbade the taking of any life for any cause. Some pacifists
have held that he prohibited the taking of any human life for any cause. But the
commandment cannot be taken that way, for Moses, who received the law, commanded the
taking of animal life for sacrifices and food and the taking of human life in war and through
capital punishment. In the context of Old Testament law, the command meant to deliberately
or intentionally take innocent human life—killing without divine warrant or authority. The
questions of war and capital punishment are so important and complex that we shall consider
them later in greater detail. But there is one other biblical exception to the law against taking
human life: killing in self-defense.
Self-defense. Physical resistance in self-defense seems to be validated in Scripture (Ex
21:13; 22:2; Num 35:22-29) but not commanded. In the (utterly unique) instance of Christ,
he did not flinch in the face of death but gave himself to evil people to provide for their
salvation. On the other hand, the Roman citizen Paul, when his life was under threat,
appealed to the Roman army for protection (Acts 23:12-33) and in another instance made an
escape (Acts 9:23-25).
Not all actions called self-defense are legitimate, and there is a hierarchy among those
that are. Defense of others or even of oneself is certainly of higher priority than the defense
of material possessions. But when there is danger of physical harm, a key question is whether
or not life is in jeopardy. That is the clearest validation of self-defense.
Another basic question for the Christian is whether the impending harm is crime-oriented
or whether it is persecution for Christ’s sake. One might choose nonresistance when suffering
for Christ but choose to resist in a crime-oriented aggression for the sake of others or even
for the sake of the aggressor himself. If the choice is made to resist physical violence, the
Christian should ask whether or not physical resistance is the only action available or
whether there are other options such as talk or deception (see chapter twenty-eight, “Truth
and Deception”). If there seems to be no other option but to resist with physical force, the
Christian should discern whether killing is the only alternative or whether lesser violence
would adequately restrain evil.
Though there are exceptions in which God authorizes the taking of human life, the sin of
murder is the ultimate sin against a human being (Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-21). While human
life is not the supreme value, it is certainly a critical one for the continued pursuit of other
values! And the value of life is probably the watershed issue for any society.
Physical violence. In a decaying society, murder may still be abhorred, but violence short
of murder often becomes acceptable. Studies have repeatedly shown that violence in the
entertainment media such as movies and disturbingly graphic video games fosters such
acceptance. But the ugly end result is a sick society where spousal abuse and child abuse are
said to touch one of four people.
Violence in the home has been the underreported and largely ignored crime of a society
preoccupied with appearances. It is estimated that 32 million people in America are affected
by domestic violence, with up to one-third of the cases going unreported.
Verbal abuse. Christ’s commentary on the sixth commandment (Mt 5:22)
emphasized verbal abuse (“you good-for-nothing!” “you idiot!” or “you fool!”). James (Jas
1:26; 3:1-12) and Solomon (Prov 13:3; 15:1, 4, 23; 17:28; 18:8, 13; 21:23; 29:20) had a great
deal to say about sins of the tongue, but the rest of Scripture is strong on the subject as well.
But didn’t Jesus call certain religious leaders “fools” (Mt 23:17)? Was he contradicting
himself? The difference is between contempt and hate in Matthew 5 and righteous
rebuke in Matthew 23. James 3 says that the tongue is like wildfire and poison, damaging
relationships and wreaking havoc in the lives of others.
A direct attack on a person with carping criticism or biting depreciation, sarcastic humor
or subtle insinuation can destroy something in that person. But just as deadly is the criticism
spoken about a person to others. Any word that harms another is murder-in-spirit. Any
rebuke must be spoken in love for the other person’s well-being or edification ( Eph 4:29)—
not simply to vent one’s emotions. Speaking the truth in love will have a constructive
purpose (Eph 4:15). Confronting someone in the wrong must be done discreetly and in a
spirit of humility and grace, directed only to the believer in the wrong (Mt 18:15-18; Gal
6:1). Instead of engaging in a spirit of gossip, the absent person must be just as “safe” with
the Spirit-directed child of God as when he is present with him.
Neglect. Another way to harm is by doing and saying nothing when a word or an action
would keep someone from harm. Failure to put a balustrade or parapet around a flat rooftop
brought bloodguiltiness if someone fell from the roof (Deut 22:8). Failure to do good, when
in one’s power to do so, is sin (Prov 3:27-28). So the poor, the helpless and the starving are
my responsibility to the extent that I have the ability to help. To be silent when another is
falsely accused, whether in a court of law or in the presence of private gossip, is to
participate in the harm. Neglect, then, is another form of murder (see also Ex 21:29-31).
Hateful anger. Incredibly, Christ’s commentary on the sixth commandment includes a
person’s inner state. Contemptuous anger is subject to God’s judgment (Mt 5:22). This was
not original with Jesus. Moses had already recorded God’s will, “You shall not hate your
brother in your heart . . . or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you
shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:17-18 RSV). Lack of love, as well as positive
hatred, is a form of murder. Of course, Jesus’ main point is to highlight the kingdom value of
reconciliation; this is evident in concrete commands that follow: “Leave your offering there
before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your
offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent” (Mt 5:24-25).
In their book Kingdom Ethics, Glen Stassen and David Gushee point out the Sermon on
the Mount’s fourteen “triads” highlighting important “transforming initiatives” for Christ’s
disciples. In these triads, Jesus (a) informs disciples of the traditional piety of the day (“You
have heard it said”); (b) points out common dead-end behavior-patterns or “vicious
cycles” such as lust, anger or making phony vows; (c) commands disciples to take concrete
steps of obedience—to take specific action against sexual temptation; to take concrete steps
toward reconciliation with enemies; or to speak truthfully and faithfully without resorting to
additional measures to make one’s word binding.[1] These initiatives break the destructive
patterns of behavior and provide a concrete path to healing, wholeness, virtue and reconciled
relationships.
How does this work with anger? First, this concrete action seeks to transform the angry
person from being trapped in the vicious cycle of anger into actively seeking to be a
peacemaker with his enemy. Second, it transforms not only the angry person, but also
the relationship—a relationship once marked by hatred, anger and division is now
transformed into one characterized by continued forgiveness and reconciliation. Finally, the
goal is to transform the enemy into a friend.
Although we address some of these transforming initiatives elsewhere in the book, we list
all of them from the Sermon on the Mount in table 21.1.
Table 21.1. Transforming Initiatives in the Sermon on the Mount a
TRADITIONAL
PIETY
VICIOUS CYCLE
TRANSFORMING
INITIATIVE
1. You shall not kill (Mt
5:21-26)
Being angry,
or saying, “You fool!”
Go, be reconciled
2. You shall not commit
adultery (Mt 5:27-30)
Looking with lust is adultery
in the heart
Remove the cause of
temptation (cf. Mk 9:43-50)
3. Whoever divorces,
give a certificate (Mt
5:31-32)
Divorcing involves you in
adultery
(Implied: Be
reconciled: cf. Mt 1:18-20; 1
Cor 7:11)
4. You shall not swear
falsely (Mt 5:33-37)
Swearing by anything
involves you in a false claim
Let your yes be yes, and
your no be no
5. Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth (Mt 5:38-
42)
Retaliating violently or
vengefully, resisting by evil
means
Turn the other cheek (don’t
pay back insult for insult)
Give your tunic and cloak
Go the second mile
Give to beggar and borrower
6. Love neighbor and
hate enemy (Mt 5:43-48)
Hating enemies (and just
loving your friends) is the
same vicious cycle you see in
the Gentiles and tax
collectors
Love enemies, pray for your
persecutors; be all-inclusive
as your Father in heaven is
7. When you give alms
(Mt 6:1-4)
Blowing a trumpet/giving for
show like the hypocrites
but give in secret, and your
Father will reward you
8. When you pray (Mt
6:5-6)
Making a show in prayer like
the hypocrites
But pray in secret, and your
Father will reward you
9. When you pray (Mt
6:7-8, 9-15)
Heaping up empty phrases
like Gentiles
Therefore pray like this:
“Our Father . . . ”
10. When you fast (Mt
6:16-18)
Fasting for show like the
hypocrites
but dress with joy, and your
Father will reward you
11. Do not pile up
treasures on earth (Mt
6:19-23)
Moth and rust destroy, and
thieves enter and steal
But pile up treasures in
heaven
12. No one can serve
two masters (Mt 6:24-
34)
Serving God and wealth,
worrying about food and
clothes
But seek first God’s reign and
God’s justice/righteousness
13. Do not judge, lest
you be judged (Mt 7:1-
5)
Judging others means you’ll
be judged by the same
measure
First take the log out of your
own eye
14. Do not give holy
things to dogs, nor pearls
to pigs (Mt 7:6-12)
They will trample them
and tear you to pieces
Give your trust in prayer to
your Father in Heaven
aAdapted from Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 142.
Now, anger is not always wrong. If it were, God would be the chief sinner, for he is angry
with wickedness every day (Ps 7:11). And note that David does not say God is angry merely
at sin. He is angry with wicked people—even using the language of “hate” (Ps 5:5; 11:5),
which we addressed in chapter two (“The Objects and Conflicts of Love”). Yes, God loves
all humans without exception (Jn 3:16-17) and genuinely extends the offer of salvation and
the call to repentance to them (Acts 17:30; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 2:2, cf. 1 Jn 5:19). Yet
we noted that God’s holy wrath—simultaneous with his love (Jn 3:16-17)—remains on them,
and God will treat as an enemy (“hate”) those who continue to oppose his will (Jn 3:36).
Can sinful mortals be Godlike in their anger? Yes, but it is not easily done. Anger is to be
put away (Eph 4:31; Col 3:8); it is one of the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19-20); it does not
work the righteousness of God (Jas 1:20). But Jesus was angry (Mk 3:5), and we are
commanded in our anger to refrain from sin and to release it (Ps 4:4; Eph 4:26). God himself
is “slow to anger” (Ex 34:6), and the virtuous person is likewise to be “slow to anger” (Jas
1:19) rather than “never angry.” Indeed, never getting angry would be a sign of apathy; not
getting angry at injustice and cruelty is a vice, not a virtue. Scripture approves of being angry
under some circumstances (Eph 4:26), but the major biblical emphasis is on anger as evil;
exceptions seem very limited.
Anger at sin, even anger at the sinner, can be a good thing (2 Cor 7:11). Jeremiah was full
of the fury of the Lord (Jer 6:11), and Paul was angry over the idolatry of the Athenians (Acts
17:16). Yet Christ himself refrained from anger when the offense was against him personally
(1 Pet 2:23-24), and “like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his
mouth” (Is 53:7 RSV).
Righteous and unrighteous anger can be distinguished by the cause of anger. One should
be angry over sin that offends God, harms others, or harms the person sinning. The difficulty
with being righteously indignant is that our motives are often mixed. Am I distressed over a
sin that offends God and harms people, or am I angry over the way I am affected? In the
latter case, the safe thing may be to eschew anger altogether, as when my child does wrong
but the wrong embarrasses me. Better to wait till the anger subsides to be sure the resulting
action does not come from a mixture of righteous and unrighteous indignation. Anger is
sinful when it is for the wrong reason or results in the wrong action.
To keep this emotion from igniting for the wrong reason or from burning out of control,
Scripture offers two paths to control anger. First, keep your wits about you: don’t get angry
suddenly (Jas 1:19). Second, don’t let it keep burning: don’t let it last till the next day (Eph
4:26). Either a “low flashpoint” (a quick response without reflection) or a “slow burn”
(allowing the emotion to continue and deepen) seem to risk causing even righteous
indignation to go astray.
Against the clear teaching of Scripture that most (not all) human anger is wrong and that
the proper response is to control it (Prov 16:32), many Christian psychologists hold that
anger is morally neutral and must be expressed.[2] To this we respond that anger is neutral in
the same way that hatred and killing are: Sometimes they are right, but mostly they are
wrong. Anger in itself is a wrong emotion if directed against the wrong object (God, an
innocent person, a thing), if for the wrong cause (personal offense, pride), or if it leads to
wrong behavior (retaliation, vengeance, physical violence).
Moreover, “venting” one’s anger is often like ventilating a fire that will do further
damage. Anger should not be suppressed (repeatedly “stuffing” our emotions so that we are
seething beneath the surface). Nor should it be vented, which displays lack of self-control
and leads to further unrestrained outbursts. Rather, it should be constructively expressed to
God (e.g., Ps 13:1-2; 62:8) and to others. We express our anger to others for their well-being,
in order to restore or preserve the relationship. Anger can actually prompt us to confront a
problematic state of affairs.
Race and Racism
Racism technically refers to the idea that certain nonracial characteristics, especially
cultural patterns, are the result of race. An example would be to generalize from the behavior
of some people of a given race, assigning that kind of behavior to all belonging to the same
race. The result is often hatred, intolerance or unjust discrimination. This attitude is often
expressed more freely and forcefully by the majority race in a given community; thus,
the label “racist” or “ethnocentric” is often assigned to those who consider their own race
superior and oppress others. But clearly, an oppressed minority can just as readily engage in
racist attitudes and action; “reverse discrimination” and abdicating personal responsibility by
hiding behind a certain “victim” status is racist. No people are immune to the virus of racism.
Contrary to Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to judge people based on “the content of their
character,” many black leaders perpetuate what King fought against—namely, judging
people by the color of their skin.[3] Of course, the same kind of sinful attitudes and behavior
can be based on differences of culture, language, tribe, socially defined class or caste, as well
as on race.
Corporate responsibility. Unjust and unloving behavior can become characteristic of a
group and become corporate or even institutionalized injustice or oppression. A legal system
or even a religion may create discrimination against a class of people. For example, we see
discrimination against the Chinese in Malaysia; we see it against Dalits (“untouchables”—
those without a caste) in India, who are ostracized by the caste-creating religion of Hinduism
itself. In a former era, racism was exemplified in the apartheid of South Africa and the
“separate but equal” Jim Crow laws in the US South. That said, in certain countries laws may
officially oppose discrimination, but the society itself may engage in unjust, unmerciful,
prejudicial practices.
A biblical view of race and discrimination. Class discrimination that works to the harm
of some in a society is virtually a universal phenomenon. For Christians to think themselves
superior is sin (Phil 2:1-8). To base such thoughts or feelings on class distinction is both
sinful and foolish (Jas 2:1-9). After all, what do we have that we did not receive (1 Cor 4:7)?
Racial discrimination is widespread but not so universal as class discrimination. The Old
Testament exhorts national Israel to be distinctive among the surrounding “Gentile” nations,
but it does not highlight the issue of “race”—a distinction much more prevalent in our day
and one based on physical characteristics.
Rahab the Canaanite is portrayed as a true Israelite who acknowledges the one true God,
whereas Achan, an ethnic Israelite, acts like a foreigner (Josh 2; 6–7). Uriah was a Hittite,
but he is highlighted for his noble character and as one of David’s mighty men ( 1 Chron
11:41). In the New Testament, Jesus praises the “mixed-breed” Samaritan for showing love
to his “enemy” neighbor (Lk 10). In Colossians 3:11—an expansion of Galatians 3:28—Paul
speaks not only of race, but of the entire social-cultural-racial sphere. Barbarians were those
who could not speak Greek and didn’t live according to Greco-Roman norms. Scythians,
who lived in the Black Sea area, were considered the worst kind of barbarian. Paul, by saying
that there is no difference in Christ, attempts to undermine every kind of cultural prejudice in
the Christian community since we are part of the new humanity in the “new human”—Christ.
[4]
Ironically, modern racism received its greatest impetus from scientists of the last century.
The subtitle of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favored Races
in the Struggle for Life. Virtually all nineteenth-century evolutionists held to the theory of
superior and inferior races. Even before this, the Scottish philosopher David Hume (d. 1776)
claimed that miracles were believed by “ignorant and barbarous” peoples, by which Hume
meant blacks.
Some have held that the Bible affirms both racial segregation and unjust discrimination
(slavery, for example), but it does not do so.[5] God did require segregation and
discrimination among people, but always based on religious or moral distinctions, never on
race or class distinctives. If one did not know better, one could get the impression that the
prophetic denunciations of the Israelites were anti-Semitic! Again, these were moral and
theological in nature. Even the Canaanites were condemned not because of their race (which
was virtually indistinct from the Israelites), but because of their wicked practices. And God
promised Israel that the land would vomit out Israel as well if Israel acted like the Canaanites
(Lev 18:28; 20:22). Though servitude was not forbidden in Scripture, God’s attitude can
clearly be seen in the restrictions set on an existing system of servitude (Deut 15:12-
18; 23:15-16; cf. Deut 22:1-4). God’s opposition to discrimination against the poor, the weak,
the minority person, the oppressed is clear and strong. The alien was to be fully incorporated
in the law of love and into the social community (Ex 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; Deut 10:18);
treated equally before the law (Ex 12:49; Lev 24:22); included in the religious life (Ex 12:48-
49; Is 56:3; Ezek 44:9); and would participate fully in God’s plan for the future (Is
49:6; 52:14-15; Ezek 47:22-23; Zech 2:11). God’s terrible judgment on Israel was in part
because of their treatment of foreigners (Jer 7:5-7; 22:2-5; Ezek 22:7-15; Zech 7:10-14; Mal
3:1-5). God himself is a protector of the alien (Num 15:15-16).
When God so strongly opposes all injustice, including the injustice resulting from class
and racial discrimination, why do Christians almost universally participate in their own
cultural patterns of discrimination rather than joining with other believers to provide a
radically biblical counterculture of justice, mercy and unity?
The roots of racism. Pride is a root cause of racism. And how foolish it is to base one’s
sense of superiority on physical characteristics, over which one has no responsibility (cf. Ex
4:11; 1 Cor 4:7)! Probably pride of race, however, is based more on cultural differences. We
generalize from the very real, profound and wide-ranging differences in culture to assume
that the highly visible physical differences are an indispensable part of the group’s
distinctives. Since people naturally prefer to associate with those whom they understand and
with whom they agree, segregation in one form or another seems inevitable. Which natural
affinity grouping may be legitimate and which is sinful thus becomes an abiding dilemma. It
is the task of the Christian and the church to work at solving this dilemma with wisdom,
compassion and courage.
Furthermore, ignorance extends this judgment to identify cultural patterns with skin
color, and the observed behavior of some is generalized to characterize all in the group. So
the faulty logic of pride and ignorance combine to divide and hurt.
In addition to pride and ignorant generalizing, fear contributes to racial and class strife—
fear of the unknown, fear of “the other.” Patterns of segregation increase the ignorance of
what the other group is really like, and the prior decision to view whatever it is like as
inferior to “our way” creates an atmosphere of fear in which imagination has more influence
than reality. Another fear is that of being hurt by “the enemy,” either through deliberate
antagonism or through being deprived of some real or potential benefit because of that
enemy. When one’s person, possessions or position are put in jeopardy by someone else, fear,
whether reasonable or not, begins to shape behavior. Fear can prompt a member of a
powerless minority to be just as racist in attitudes and actions as those who have the power to
impose injustice. Thus pride and fear often combine with ignorance to produce the full range
of attitudes and actions of racism, from inadequate love, through hatred and violence, to
structured injustice and killing.
African Americans. Some, such as the late Tom Skinner, a former leading black
evangelical spokesman, say American racial problems are a white problem. There are at least
two differing emphases among those who hold this view. Some hold that black and white are
today reaping the whirlwind from the winds generated by America’s slaveholding
forefathers. White attitudes and black behavior patterns, both destructive to the black, were
created during 250 years of American slavery.
Later studies discount this and point to present social structures and personal attitudes as
the problem.[6] This view sees high potential in African Americans but a potential from which
most African Americans are permanently barred by a tightly woven social fabric that begins
with poverty and poor education leading to unemployment, low-paying jobs and crime. On
this view, it is up to the white majority society to change the environment and social
structures.
A contrasting perspective affirms that black people are primarily responsible for their
own deliverance—and that even if all racial discrimination ceased, this would not by itself
improve their economic status. Think about the majority Malay discrimination against the
minority Chinese in Malaysia, even though the latter were more likely to succeed
educationally and prosper economically. American black economist Walter Williams takes up
this point, calling attention to the deafening silence from black leaders about black-on-black
crime: 94 percent of blacks murdered are killed by other blacks, and while blacks comprise
13 percent of the population, they account for 50 percent of the nation’s homicide victims.
And when blacks commit crimes against Asians or whites, these commonly go unreported.[7]
Along with Williams and another black economist Thomas Sowell, black author Shelby
Steele points out that racial victimization (“racial holding”) is not the real problem, but a
sense of entitlement from society—that society owes blacks something; society, rather than
blacks themselves, is the agent of change. Rather than being colorblind and focused on merit
and qualification, affirmative action or “quotas” that demand minority representation for, say,
college admission means lowering academic standards for blacks. This in turn creates a sense
of insecurity, as they will be second-guessing whether they were accepted because of their
skin color or because they were truly qualified. And the second-guessing also includes
observers of the process.[8]
Steele emphasizes that individual effort and sacrifice that characterized the early civil
rights movement has been diminished. Rather than hesitating on the brink of opportunity,
blacks as individuals must join the larger society to make a place for themselves. Race, he
argues, must not be a source of advantage or disadvantage for anyone. Indeed, if all people
are created equal, then racial difference cannot sanction power.[9]
This was essentially Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s position. He told a St. Louis
congregation in 1961: “Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St.
Louis and are responsible for 58 percent of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got
to do something about our moral standards.” He added: “We know that there are many things
wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t
keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”[10]
These grave problems among African Americans—and we could add other ethnic groups
—will not be fully solved by human wisdom and mere political actions. This is due not only
to their vast complexity, but more so to the root problem of entrenched sin. The gospel
message of reconciliation and “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ has not been faithfully
proclaimed by the church. We turn next to consider that failure.
Racism in the church. While political action is necessary, only a more pervasive cure of
the human spirit can bring about a lasting solution—both within and outside the church. How
can the church cleanse and heal its own members and then become God’s instrument to
cleanse and heal society?
The new birth. New people alone can build a new society, but church membership does
not bring this about automatically. Many churches in South Africa supported apartheid. How
does one get Christians to behave like Christians?
Teaching. The church has the responsibility to teach the truth that we are all one in Christ
Jesus (Gal 3:26-28; Eph 2:11-14; 4:3-4; Col 3:10-11). But since attitudes are so often
unconsciously embedded, the church must intentionally and courageously apply this truth,
pointing out the insidious outcroppings of racial prejudice and God’s hatred of this sin
against the unity of his body.
Personal relations. Teaching must be activated in the personal relationship of blacks and
whites on the job, in the community, in the home and in the church. The loving fellowship
intended by the Father among transformed members of his family must be lived out.
“Teaching” includes spiritual supervision, of course, so that members of the church are
disciplined in living what is taught. Black and white disciples of Christ can build godly
personal relationships and help awaken a culture-bound church. A roused church can, in turn,
influence its community to build a more just and merciful society.
Structure and program. The church must not only teach and help individuals find the
right way; it must eliminate every direct or indirect church policy of racial discrimination.
This could begin by pastoral prayer and fellowship networks that include church leaders of
different races. Black and white churches could hold special services to worship and pray
together. And while churches understandably have their own worship styles, doctrinal
distinctives, unique ministries and particular callings, does Scripture require every African
American church, for example, to aggressively recruit whites until there is a racial balance
equivalent to society at large? We believe this goes beyond any biblical mandate. On the
other hand, though churches and other groups tend to develop along lines of cultural
compatibility, this does not give license for any church to put formal or informal
impediments to full participation by anyone, regardless of race, social status, or any other
nonmoral characteristic. We must, however, work aggressively for unity in the body of Christ
and labor together for the advance of Christ’s kingdom in which there is no barrier between
white and black, high class and low class, male and female, rich and poor.
Another evidence of racism in the church has been the paternalistic, if not colonialistic,
attitudes and relationships of many missionaries in the past. This has been replaced, in some
instances, by a new racism, a nationalism that has given birth to anti-white attitudes among
some church leaders in non-Western nations. Either type of racism is unworthy of those who
call themselves Christian.
The principles enunciated for racism in the American church apply just as much to the far
more common worldwide problem of classism or unchristian discrimination on the basis of a
person’s social status. I (Paul) have heard of people commenting, “Great Britain (or America)
has its own caste system” or “Racism in much of the West is just as bad as the caste system
in India.” Not so. Tribal warfare across the continent of Africa, for example, and India’s caste
system, which holds hundreds of millions of Indians in abject poverty and bondage, make the
evil of racism in North America pale by comparison. Yet we are responsible, not for the sins
of others, but for our own. And measured by the pain inflicted, racism in the United States is
a grievous personal and social ill.
Further Reading
Hays, J. Daniel. From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Race. New York: Basic Books, 2013.
Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary
Context. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Steele, Shelby. The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
22Abortion and Infanticide
The unwanted infant and the unwanted unborn have been killed from time immemorial,
both when the killing was legal and when it was illegal. Until recently the church never
seriously debated the morality of killing an infant for any reason. The Didache, an early
Christian document (c. A.D. 100–110) affirms: “You shall not kill the fetus by abortion or
destroy the infant already born.” Even in 1963, a Planned Parenthood pamphlet stated, “An
abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It
may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.”
But because of the recent introduction into the abortion controversy of new concepts
about “personhood” and “quality of life,” the debate has begun to encompass the newborn as
well. One notable spokesman for infanticide is Princeton’s Peter Singer. As we saw, he
claims that because newborns (or those suffering from dementia) are not self-aware or aware
of their existence over time, they (“human non-persons”) have less value to society than pigs,
dogs or chimps (“non-human persons”).[1] This is no mere academic theory—regardless of
whether a child is handicapped or not. For example, the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit
Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison in 2013 for killing newborn children—severing their
spinal cord—after botched abortions. And the media silence, with only a few exceptions, was
deafening. This case exposed the moral inconsistencies bound up with the abortion industry,
as we note below. Even so, for those ethicists who acknowledge the full authority of
Scripture, there is no room for any view that would justify the killing of infants, whether
healthy or handicapped. To deliberately take the life of an infant is murder.
Since many of the arguments used to vindicate the widespread fatal neglect or actual
killing of infants are the same as those used in the abortion issue, and since Bible-committed
Christians do not debate the morality of killing an innocent person, we leave the question of
infanticide and turn immediately to the abortion issue.
To set the context, consider the stages of human development:
1. Sperm. There are between 250 and 300 million spermatozoa in a single ejaculation.
2. Zygote. One sperm and the ovum unite (conception) within forty-eight hours of
intercourse, and the fertilized ovum (also called the conceptus) makes its four-to-six-day
journey down the fallopian tube, seeking implantation in the uterus (womb). Up to one-half
of zygotes do not make it to implantation.
3. Embryo. The fertilized ovum or “egg” is implanted, and the embryo is established in its own
individual life, though 4 percent of twins divide after implantation (“twinning”). On the
other hand, there are cases where two eggs are released by the mother, both are fertilized, but
because of their movement, they become one egg (called “recombination”).
4. Fetus. The embryo has developed all human physical characteristics by about eight weeks
and is called a fetus from then till birth.
5. Infant. Birth into physical independence of the mother, though, unlike most animals, still
wholly dependent on others for survival.
6. Child
7. Youth
8. Adult
Killing of a human being at stages 5 (infant) through 8 (adult) has been considered a
violation of the sixth commandment throughout church history. Killing sperm (stage 1) or
preventing conception has been opposed by the Roman Catholic Church as sinful, but has not
been opposed by most Protestant churches. The broader social debate involves stages 2
(zygote) through 4 (fetus).
The Soul and the Beginning of Life
The crux of the issue is the question: At which stage does personhood or ensoulment
begin?
What is the soul? The soul is who you are. Or you could say, “I am my soul.” The soul is
the center of personal awareness. The soul gives each of us our personal identity through all
of our bodily changes. The body’s cells are virtually entirely overhauled or replenished every
seven years or so. So something nonphysical (the soul) must allow for this continuity through
change. Even though the soul can survive bodily death, our body and soul function as an
integrated and organic whole. When I (my soul) worry, this can set my stomach churning.
And when I feel pain in my body, the soul (or “I”) focuses attention on it. And when my
body dies, my soul can continue to exist by God’s sustaining power in the “intermediate
state” (Lk 20:38; 23:43; 2 Cor 5:3-8; Phil 1:21, 23-24). At Christ’s return, we will receive an
immortal resurrection body. By the way, animals have “souls” too. Just as Adam is a “living
soul” (nepeš hayāh, Gen 2:7), so are animals (Gen 1:24). But animal souls—which have far
fewer capacities than that of humans, who are made in God’s image—do not survive bodily
death.[2]
Historically the church has debated the issue of ensoulment. When does the physical
body possess a soul? Is it passed on through biological generation from one’s parents? Does
God create a soul and “implant” it in a human body? If so, at what stage does he do this? At
conception? At implantation in the uterus? At some point beyond, such as “quickening”?
Though Scripture does not expressly tell us, theologians have debated two main views
throughout the church’s history—the creationist and the traducian positions. According to
the creationist view, the individual human soul (or person) comes into existence—is created
by God—at the point of fertilization. The traducian view, by contrast, considers the soul as a
continuation of the parents’ souls, going all the way back to the original human couple. Like
a shoot (tradux in Latin) that extends itself outward, so one’s soul was not newly created by
God at conception; rather, at fertilization, the soul of the parents is passed on to the offspring
as an organic extension of the human “vine.”
Whatever view is taken, the focus of the question is really on when a new individual
comes into being. The question of the beginning of the “soul” is the key issue for Christians,
for they want to know when the human soul comes into existence. After all, that is when
human life truly begins. What is the status of all failed spermatozoa? What will become of
spontaneously aborted zygotes and embryos? Are only fetuses reaching live birth ensouled?
Even the concept of what the term soul means is difficult to determine from scriptural data,
let alone when the soul begins. Though Scripture does not speak directly to the issue of when
“ensoulment” takes place, does it offer any insights about the unborn? What insights can we
gain from philosophical reflection on the biblical text?
Because of recent advances in our knowledge of prenatal life through three-dimensional
sonograms, the scientific evidence reveals quite clearly the early traces of physical human
characteristics. The contention of some pro-abortion advocates that the embryo is merely a
tissue or organ of the mother, like her appendix, gave way in the seventies before the weight
of scientific evidence. Virtually all agree that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are individuals of
the human species with their own unique DNA code. Indeed, the unborn is totally dependent
on the mother before birth as the infant is after birth, but the child pre- or post-natal has its
own individuality. Surely a pregnant mother does not have two heads or a male sexual organ.
We note that despite the appropriate concern shown by some protectors of sea turtle eggs, the
same passion for protecting life is not extended to unborn humans.
There is no clear-cut logical demarcation in the development of human life from
conception to adulthood. If it is argued that an embryo still lacks essential human
characteristics, such as brain activity, it cannot be argued that the life of the fetus (from two
or three months till birth) is biologically different from the life she will experience following
birth. From conception onward, there is personal continuity and, given enough time, the
human embryo will be a fully functioning adult.
So from a biological point of view there is little difference between aborting a fetus and
killing an infant. An embryo, and especially a zygote, is qualitatively different, and it may
not be possible to prove categorically that fully human biological life exists at that stage. But
it would be impossible to prove that the zygote or embryo does not possess a fully human
existence.
What of twinning (division after implantation) and recombination (two fertilized eggs
becoming one)? Does this throw into question life’s beginning? What of the beginning of the
soul? First, there is no question we are speaking of something human and
something living. Second, in either situation, the fertilized egg or conceptus is genetically
unique. Third, there is no scientific consensus on certain dimensions of twinning, which
could involve asexual reproduction (parthenogenesis). Consider how inseparable Siamese
twins have distinct centers of awareness (souls) despite being joined in body. Some scientists
think that some fertilized eggs are a basic duality before they divide. Fourth, the traducian
view of the soul in particular—with its image of a vine-like shoot spreading out—could
readily account for twinning and recombination. So we see that twinning and recombination
do not present any good reason to reject that we are dealing with unique human life. One
philosopher offers this analogy:
Imagine that we lived in a world in which a certain small percentage of teenagers replicated
themselves by some mysterious natural means, splitting in two upon reaching their sixteenth
birthday. We would not in the least be inclined to conclude that no human being could
therefore be considered a person prior to becoming sixteen years of age; nor would we
conclude that life could be taken with greater impunity prior to replication than afterward.
The real oddity—to press the parallel—would be two teenagers becoming one. However, in
all of this we still would not judge the individual’s claim to life to be undermined in any way.
We might puzzle over questions of personal identity . . . but we would not allow these
strange replications and fusions to influence our thinking about an individual’s right to life.
Nor therefore does it seem that such considerations are relevant in determining the point at
which an individual might assume a right to life in utero.[3]
Someone like David Boonin will claim that we don’t know exactly when during
conception the human comes into existence. For example, is it when the sperm penetrates the
ovum? Is it when the maternal and paternal chromosomes “cross over” into a two-
chromosome (diploid) set? Or is it when the conceptus implants in the uterus? In response,
we should not confuse knowing (epistemology) with being (ontology). Even if we cannot
precisely know when a human comes into being, we can say that we have an actual unique
human being at or close to conception. And we could challenge Boonin and others about
their own claims: At what point does a human have a right to life? Exactly when does one
arrive at the point of being sufficiently rational and self-aware?[4] Those advocating Boonin’s
view are far less sure and are far more vague and shady than the pro-life position’s starting
point. And even if one is uncertain about the status of the unborn, one should err on the side
of caution and seek to protect unborn life rather than advocate killing it.
From a biological point of view, there is no question of unique personal identity that is
genetically distinct from the mother, beginning at conception. From the time a mother knows
she is expecting, the unborn already has a beating heart (three and a half weeks). Brain
function is detectable at six weeks. At eight weeks, the unborn has distinctive limbs and even
fingerprints. Even if it is “above one’s pay grade” to know the moral status of the unborn,
one should not actively promote killing the unborn in the name of “a woman’s right to
choose”—any more than a hunter shoots at something moving in the woods without knowing
exactly what is moving. Ignorance on such an important issue should prompt restraint and
caution rather than proceeding as though the issue did not matter.
So the debate has shifted from the question of when human life begins to the question of
the value of various forms of life.
The Value of Life
Since the unborn are already a form of human life, many in the pro-life movement hold
that abortion of zygote, embryo or fetus is a form of murder and must be outlawed by any
moral society. At the other extreme are those who hold that there are differences of value
among human lives and that not all human beings are “persons.” In the landmark 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision of the Supreme Court, Justice Harry Blackmun introduced the concept of
“useful life,” suggesting that to end a life that is not useful may be not only permissible but
actually mandatory for the ethically sensitive person. The key issue is said to be the “quality
of life,” not the “sanctity of life.” The philosopher James Rachels distinguished
between biological life (mere physical existence) and biographical life (a life infused with a
sense of meaning and the capacity to live out that life). Between these two opposite
viewpoints range the majority of specialists and ordinary people in America.
The right to choose. Common in political discourse is the language of women having
“reproductive” or “privacy” rights or having a planned and wanted child. We hear that laws
should be “kept off” a woman’s body—although abortion is the ultimate invasion of it. And
we are familiar with the claim that the woman—not the church or state—should determine
her “fate.” The woman has a right to protect her body, we’re told. As some portray it, the
unborn child is something of an unforeseen “invasion” into the woman’s womb.
Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson came up with a much-discussed thought-experiment:
You are kidnapped by music lovers and find yourself in a hospital hooked up to the body of
an unconscious but ailing world-famous violinist; he is completely dependent on your
circulatory system as you share the rarest of blood types. After nine months, the violinist will
certainly recover, but he will die if you allow the tubes to be disconnected. What should be
done? Thomson argues that if one finds a human being parasitically attached to him without
his free consent and quite possibly at great risk to the host’s physical health, then the host has
no moral obligation to continue to sustain this life, even if—for the sake of argument—that
person is fully human.[5] Is Thomson’s comparison of a dependent violinist with an unborn
child a valid one? No, it is not.
For one thing, the unborn child has not willfully “invaded” the womb. In the vast
majority of cases, two freely consenting adults engaged in sexual activity; their union
produced another human individual, whose natural environment is—or should be—the safety
of a mother’s womb. Second, the notion of kidnapping or something alien or parasitic being
attached to you is emotionally loaded language; it is question begging (assuming what it
wants to prove). Why not use the language of “mother” and “unborn child”? The mother-
child connection just isn’t a stranger-stranger relationship. Whereas the violinist is
a stranger, the mother is connected to her own child and surely has a greater responsibility to
that child. Doesn’t a helpless, vulnerable, dependent child—born or unborn—have a claim to
motherly care and protection from its own mother? Third, when it comes to abortion, we are
not speaking here of merely withholding medical care from someone who is dying (see the
next chapter on euthanasia). We are speaking of actively destroying an unborn life, which
sometimes involves crushing its skull and dismembering it. Thomson’s argument that this is
merely “withholding” care is like smothering a person with a pillow, claiming this is simply
withholding oxygen from that person.
What then of the “right to choose” language? It is laden with questionable assumptions.
For one thing, right to choose what? “Choice” is a relative term—like saying “to the left of.”
A right to choose in relation to what? We gain moral clarity when we ask: What is
the object of one’s choice? Is one free to rape or murder? Obviously not. Second, the “right
to choose” assumes an individualistic outlook that undermines community; it fails to
welcome “the least of these” unborn children into the world, where they can be cared for and
loved. Third, this mindset fails to see life as a gift from God and thus a charge to keep. We
are not sovereign over our own lives or the lives of others God has entrusted to us. Fourth,
we do not choose our earthly family (or spiritual family for that matter), yet we are called to
committed love—to seek the well-being of others, even if doing so is inconvenient and even
challenging. Abortion undermines the spirit of these loving commitments that make life
meaningful.
Personhood. Unlike Thomson, most would agree that if the unborn are fully human
persons, then their lives should not be taken. But how does one define “fully human” or
“personhood”? Now, Father, Son and Spirit are divine persons in the Godhead, and there
are angelic persons as well. Here we are discussing the category of human personhood.
Pro-abortionist philosophers such as Peter Singer and James Rachels attempt to define
personhood along the psychological or social lines—for example, self-awareness, personal
identity over time, rationality, social awareness, or possessing the desire for a certain kind of
life (“quality of life”). Singer himself does not hide his animosity for the Jewish-Christian
outlook and the idea of inviolable rights rooted in a God who made humans in his image.
Others will claim that recognizability as a human, viability (the ability to survive outside the
womb), or a certain level of brain development renders one human. These criteria can be
used to judge whether the unborn can be killed or not. However, such suggestion wrongly
anchors humanness or personhood in function rather than in nature or essence.
But what is more basic—the whole or the parts? Is essence or nature more fundamental
than function? Essence (what makes us what we are) is more fundamental than function.
Though we are designed by God to function as priest-kings in this world, we come with
certain capacities to carry out these God-given tasks. That is, as humans, we come with
certain essential capacities that make us human, even if we are not presently utilizing them.
For example, humans have the capacity for self-awareness, but surely a person who
is sleeping or temporarily comatose is still a full person even if her capacity for self-
awareness is not being exercised. What about rationality? Our capability for rationality may
be physically blocked by a blunt trauma to the head—or by Down syndrome or Alzheimer’s.
But if it would be possible for those physical blockages to be removed, then those inherent
abilities bound up in human nature could be realized.
What about the criterion of having “human-like” physical characteristics to qualify one as
a “person”? As ethicist Francis Beckwith points out, mannequins look quite “human” but are
far from being human. A hundred-year-old woman will look quite different from a healthy
newborn, but who would dispute that both are human? Whether the malformed Elephant
Man or the midget, they belong to the species homo sapiens, and their divinely endowed
worth is to be protected. What of the criterion of “viability” outside the womb? Of course,
given the increased sophistication of medical technology, this depends on where one lives.
Viability will be earlier in the United States than in tribal West Africa. And before modern
medicine, viability was significantly later than it is today. Is the humanity of the unborn so
arbitrary that it depends on the era or geographic location in which one lives?
The biblical concept of “the image of God” assumes that our role as priest-kings in this
world involves the essentially human capacity to reason, know God, make choices, create
culture, appreciate beauty and relate deeply. This recognition of human dignity inspired both
the modern human rights movement[6]and the bioethics movement of the 1960s. It
highlighted the sacredness of humans, regardless of their stage of development or physical
condition. Daniel Callahan, a leader in the bioethics movement and cofounder of the
Hastings Center, writes, “When I first became interested in bioethics in the mid-1960s, the
only resources were theological or those drawn from within the traditions of medicine,
themselves heavily shaped by religion.”[7] Likewise, A. R. Jonsen’s account of the “birth of
bioethics” credits the influence of the “Judeo-Christian religious tradition”[8] The “founding
father” of the modern bioethics was Paul Ramsey (1913–1988), a Methodist professor. He
took for granted that human value is “ultimately grounded in the value God is placing on it”
and that no person “is ever much more than a fellow fetus.”[9]
What of the idea of a “useful life” or “biographical life” as the basis for establishing a
legal right to life? Leo Alexander, director of the neurobiologic unit in the division of
psychiatric research at Boston State Hospital and formerly serving with the Office of the
Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, Nuremberg, documented how the “rational utility”
principle (or “what is useful?”) guided medical thought in Germany between the two world
wars; it came to displace fundamental moral and religious values. Under the Nazis, this
Hegelian principle led to using “human experimental material” in medico-military research
and to exterminate the “useless” in society—the chronically ill or the socially or racially
unwanted.[10] Such elitist definitions of true personhood or what is “worthy life” not only led
eventually to the attempted extermination of the Jewish race; in an earlier era it led to the
enslavement of vast numbers of black “nonpersons.” The definition of some as subhuman or
less worthy was the implication of the Dred Scott decision by our Supreme Court (1857), and
it lay at the root of American justification of the slave system. Today it is used to justify
abortion of unborn children.
Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, commenting on the same phenomenon, points out that
the process began with the concept of the “value of life” and at first was applied only to
severely, chronically ill, but it was gradually expanded until, under Hitler, it became the
Holocaust. And he argued that the “abortion issue is far and away the most important one
now facing what we continue to call Western Civilization.”[11]
Mother Teresa once said that nations refusing to welcome children by aborting them are
the poorest of nations. Death comes to the unborn simply because they are an inconvenience,
and the widespread practice of abortion is a clear sign that we live in a “culture of death.”
Biblical Evidence
Scripture does not directly address the issue of abortion. This does not mean that God is
indifferent to the issue any more than the Bible’s lack of direct teaching on suicide and
euthanasia indicates moral neutrality. “You shall not murder” is the overarching principle and
covers all varieties of intentionally taking innocent human life. As we note later, Scripture
indicates that the justifiable taking of human life includes just warfare, capital punishment,
and self-defense. So do unborn human beings bear the image of God?
Most serious discussions of the biblical evidence for or against abortion wrestle
with Exodus 21:22-25—the passage about two men fighting who accidentally injure a
pregnant woman (and her unborn child). Two alternative translations are in view: she is
struck and (a) “gives birth prematurely” or (b) she “has a miscarriage.” If the translation
should be “gives birth prematurely,” the context and language suggest that further injury or
“harm” could apply to both the woman and the unborn. If “has a miscarriage” is correct, then
the penalty when an unborn child dies is merely a fine; if there is “further injury” to the
woman, the penalty is proportional— “life for life, eye for eye.” Thus, some claim that the
unborn has lesser value since only a fine is required. On the other hand, some argue that the
Hebrew word yālad should be translated “give birth [prematurely]” rather than “have a
miscarriage.” It means “go forth” or “give birth,” describing a normal birth (Gen
25:26; 38:28-30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer 1:5; 20:18); it is always used of giving birth, never of
miscarriage.
Even so, since any death—whether of the mother or the unborn—would be accidental, a
“life for life” scenario would not apply. Rather, a fine was typically demanded, as in the case
of the goring ox (Ex 21:28-30). Also, in manslaughter cases (accidental death), the cities of
refuge were made available (Num 25). So this passage is not decisive. Even if the penalties
for killing a mother and the unborn were different, it does not follow that the unborn is less
than human. And, again, accidental death is different from willfully killing, as with an
abortion.
In Psalm 139, we do find strong support for the value of the unborn—the psalmist being
the same self or “I” as the one developing being in the womb.
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be. (Ps 139:13-16 NIV)
The Bible consistently refers to conception when speaking of the beginning of one’s
personal history. Genesis 4:1 says, “Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she
conceived and gave birth to Cain.” Job lamented, “Let the day perish on which I was to be
born, and that night which said, ‘A boy is conceived’” (Job 3:3). David traced his own
identity back to conception, acknowledging, “In sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).
An interesting account of fetal life is recorded in Luke 1. John the Baptist, a fetus of six
months, leaps for joy (Lk 1:44) at the arrival of his cousin Jesus, who was in the earliest
stages of prenatal development. Elizabeth addresses Mary as “the mother of my Lord” (Lk
1:43), not as “the future mother of my potential Lord.”
The common references in Scripture to God’s interest and call to people while still in
their mothers’ wombs would be conclusive evidence that God considers these “fully human.”
What about when God uses similar terminology of people before conception: “Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer 1:5;
cf. Eph 1:4). This does not refer to personal existence before birth. Mormons make that very
claim. But to actually sustain that argument, Jeremiah would also be able to say to
God, “And before You formed me in the womb, I knew You!” Rather, this text speaks of
God’s foreknowledge and purposing to use individuals as prophets or to form a people for
himself.
The biblical evidence suggests that the biblical writers saw a continuity between the
prenatal and postnatal states. This is supported by the scientific and philosophical evidence,
which points us to strongly affirming the continuity of a person or self who bears the divine
image beginning at conception. The soul or self or “I” that you are today began at conception
and has continued to the present; the human self is a uniquely created being who has a right
or claim to protection and care at each stage of life. As Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a
Who reminds us, “A person is a person, no matter how small.”
Abortion As Murder
Should a person who performs an abortion or who requests one be subject to the same
penalties as one who kills a child or an adult? Why do we not name a miscarried embryo and
hold a funeral service for it? Why do parents not grieve in the same way, especially when the
spontaneous abortion is early? Should the teenager, who, seduced and distraught, takes a
“morning-after pill” be treated as if she murdered an adult? In our estimation, the abortion of
a zygote or embryo is morally wrong because it bears God’s image from conception onward
in a continuous personal existence extending beyond earthly life. That said, one who
commits such an abortion should not be treated as one who commits premeditated murder.
What, then, is the sin? Both ancient Jewish law and contemporary law hold a person
responsible for criminal neglect or reckless behavior that is not aimed deliberately at any
person but results in harm or death. It is morally wrong—a violation of God’s law—and even
the Hippocratic Oath took for granted the wrongness of abortion. While we believe that
preventing conception before, during or after intercourse is not of itself wrong, the abortion
of a zygote or embryo is a sin of reckless violence. Should this act then be criminalized?
Should women having abortions be thrown into prison? We do not believe so.
Even before 1973, many state laws against abortion attempted to strike a balance of
considerations. They sought to uphold the sanctity of the unborn by criminalizing
the abortionist who engaged in directly killing the unborn—particularly gruesome later in
the third-trimester, when skulls would be crushed and bodies dismembered. These laws also
took for granted that women seeking abortions tended to be vulnerable and desperate. In our
culture, ignorance about abortion is far more widespread, and many are not convinced that
the unborn are part of the human community. Women seeking abortions are not given the
facts about the full humanity of the unborn, but are told that what is in their womb is “the
product of conception” or “a blob of tissue.” As it turns out, women are the second victims of
abortion, commonly pressured by boyfriends or husbands into having an abortion, and then
potentially dealing with regret and guilt as they may realize later that they have taken a
human life.[12]
Attempts to Justify Abortion
How should such a position be applied to the many difficult problems and issues that
arise in this great contemporary moral issue?
Economic and social well-being. This is probably the most trivial reason for violating
the right to life of another human, but it is also probably the most common motivation for
abortion. It appears that, second only to the drive for personal autonomy, the desire for
freedom from the limitations of parenting and for an affluent lifestyle are primary
motivations behind the pro-choice movement. Of course, for those—especially in many non-
Western countries—where the desire is not for affluence but for escape from grinding
poverty, the motivation may be somewhat higher. But the irony is that poor people are not the
chief abortion advocates. In fact, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a chief advocate of the poor,
considered abortion to be the greatest crime. Says Teresa, “It is a very, very great poverty to
decide that a child must die that you may live as you wish.”
What about deaths through back-alley abortions if abortion were illegal? The number of
deaths of mothers under the old system has been greatly inflated. In 1971, two years before
the Roe v. Wade decision, there were only sixty-eight deaths from illegal abortions and
abortion attempts in the entire United States. Compare that with fifty-five million deaths of
the unborn since 1973.
Mental health of the mother.Of higher value than her material welfare is the mental
welfare of the mother. But is the potential of psychological damage to be compared with the
certain loss of life and the possible agony of a violent, painful and protracted dying?
Regardless of who is on what side of the abortion debate, the mother and the unborn child
must not be pitted against each other. And if the pro-abortion side is solely concerned about
the mother’s well-being, then it should acknowledge the dangers to the mother who chooses
abortion. In 2011, a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry showed how
abortion has been linked to significant increased risk of not only depression and anxiety, but
social phobia (61 percent), suicide ideation (59 percent) and various types of substance abuse
(ranging from 142 to 313 percent).[13]
Life of the mother. Historically, Protestants have justified taking the life of the unborn
when a continued pregnancy would put the life of the mother in jeopardy. For example, an
ectopic pregnancy—when the fertilized egg is trapped in the fallopian tubes—will lead to
certain death for both the mother and the unborn. There may be other scenarios in which the
mother or the unborn may live, but not both. Most Protestants would argue that preserving
the mother’s life has a self-defense justification, in addition to having to choose in a “tragic
necessity” scenario—preserving the life of the wife and, possibly, mother of others so as to
prevent a greater loss to the family and even to society. We should add that Roman Catholic
teaching insists that unless both lives are in jeopardy, to deliberately take the life of one
merely to avert the danger of loss to the other is not deemed ethically justifiable.
Whatever the outcome of the debate over unborn-life versus mother-life, the practical
truth is that, due to the rapid advances of medical science, this dilemma is extraordinarily
rare. Abortion is not justifiable based on the rarest of cases. In virtually all cases, taking
innocent human life can be avoided.
Unwanted children. “No one should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the
world.” This argument is possibly the least worthy. In the first place, many unwanted
children at birth become very much wanted. Babies have a way with people. Furthermore, it
can hardly be said that any child is unwanted in the present-day United States where the
desire to adopt seems almost limitless. This is a clear, practical answer for unmarried
mothers, who account for the vast majority of abortions. If the unborn were not human
beings, the question of their wantedness may have some validity, but since they are human,
the claim of unwantedness has no more merit than it would have in the case of the unwanted
child who has already been born. Do we say, “No parent should be forced to raise an
unwanted child”?
This question raises another: What happens to unwanted children? Do not unwanted
children become abused children? Is it fair to bring a child into the world who must face such
a future? This argument is not used for children and adults who may face possibly unpleasant
futures—otherwise, the entire race would be in jeopardy. True, many now advocate suicide
as preferable to continued intolerable suffering, but suicide is self-chosen; abortion is not.
Before the 1973 Supreme Court decision it was said that abortion on demand would reduce
child abuse, but during the first decade following that decision, even though fifteen million
unwanted children were aborted, child abuse climbed nearly 400 percent. One study showed
that 90 percent of battered children were from planned pregnancies. But the truth
is: abortion is the ultimate child abuse, and violence against the unborn seems to create an
atmosphere—both personal and social—in which violence to the already born proves to be
less abhorrent. Abortion is an insult to a culture of life.
To say that a woman does not “want” a being she has helped bring into existence is a
gross betrayal of the life-compact already entered into; this is quite hypocritical. Why not
rather face the consequences of one’s past choices and make sure that the child is wanted,
either by the natural parent(s) or by others who stand in line awaiting the opportunity to
adopt? This is a more honorable, civilized and moral way than killing.
One further word concerning wantedness. In every place where the
prenatal determination of sex has become commonplace (such as India and China), unborn
females have been aborted far out of proportion to males. How ironic that women, seeking to
assert their rights at the expense of their own children’s right to life, actually open the way to
a perverse “gendercide”—a frontal assault in what turns out to be a genuine “war on
women.”
All of this discussion should remind us who oppose the constitutional right to abortion to
take responsibility to assist mothers with unwanted pregnancies. Not only should we oppose
abortion, but we have a moral obligation to work toward providing alternatives. We can
affirm a culture of life by caring for and even opening our homes or providing shelter for
unwed mothers, not to mention involvement through foster care and adoption. We can assist
parents who cannot cope with special medical or financial needs. We must demonstrate our
love for mothers as we seek to protect their unborn children. Compassion with tears is more
appropriate in creating a culture of life than anger and bitter words.
Rape, incest and the handicapped. In the case of rape and incest, the new life did not
originate through any choice of the mother; so the responsibility of the mother is of a
different kind. What to do now is her first choice, not her second.
Ultimately, however, the answer to the terrible dilemma faced by a girl or woman who
finds herself pregnant under such circumstances depends on whether the unborn is a human
being. If it is, no matter what the source, to destroy it is wrong. A second act of violence
cannot correct the first. The mother’s lack of responsibility for the conception does not
remove the child’s God-given right to life. The unborn child is not the attacker but is, in fact,
a second victim, who should not receive capital punishment for its father’s crime.
There is a further problem concerning legislation that permits abortion in cases of rape or
incest. Such laws invite trivialization of the crime of rape since women with unwanted
pregnancies often have used this exception as a loophole, claiming to be victims of rape
when in fact no rape occurred. If the rape is reported immediately, no legal exception would
be needed, as the procedure would normally be contraceptive rather than abortive.
With increased sophistication in prenatal diagnosis, potential birth defects are more easily
detected. As a result, up to 90 percent of the handicapped are aborted.[14]That said, it is better
to suffer harm than to inflict it, and the response to the unborn child with a physical handicap
is not to eliminate the little one but to care for her. If the fetus is human, then this unborn
handicapped human, like the handicapped child or adult, has the right to life. Furthermore, in
all but the few extreme cases, physical handicap does not need to mean a life not worth
living. On the contrary, “The suicide rate among handicapped people is virtually
zero.”[15] One survey indicates that 99 percent of adults with Down syndrome report that they
are happy with their lives.[16]
Blessing and benefit come not only to the handicapped, but also to the caregivers, many
of whom deepen in their compassion and even their courage while tending to the needs of
others. This is movingly depicted in the book Bright Valley of Love—the true story of daring,
courageous love in an effort to protect handicapped children in danger of Nazi extermination.
[17]Indeed, caregivers often find themselves “humanized” in attending to the needs of others.
University of North Florida English professor Chris Gabbard tells of his young son August
(when he was ten) who has cerebral palsy; he is completely nonverbal and cognitively
nonfunctional and must wear a diaper. Before August was born, Gabbard followed Peter
Singer’s thinking, confessing to prizing intellectual ability and despising “poor mental
function.” When his son was born, he entered the intensive-care nursery with deep
ambivalence: “What most stirred me was the way he resembled me. Nothing had prepared
me for this, the shock of recognition, for he was the boy in my own baby pictures, the image
of me when I was an infant.” Gabbard acknowledges that he cannot take vacations and that
medical costs are significant. Nevertheless, he announces, “August, along with my daughter
and my wife, is the most amazing and wonderful thing that has ever happened to me, for he
has allowed me an additional opportunity to profoundly love another human being.”[18]
Abortion Law
Despite the slogans, morality is legislated at least to some degree—against, say, rape,
theft or murder. The legal, however, is not the moral, we have noted. Adultery or
homosexual activity is immoral, but this does not mean these should be criminalized. But if
abortion is the taking of innocent human life, however, it should be made illegal. But some
say that laws enforcing the private religious convictions of some citizens should not be
imposed on all. There is an element of truth in this. If laws are made that the broader
community has no intention of enforcing, it is bad law as it promotes a lawless society. But
to call abortion a private matter is far off the mark. Abortion immediately involves the
unborn child, quickly involves others, such as the father, and soon has an impact on all
society. In mainland China today, where 13 million abortions take place per year (in contrast
to 1.6 million in the United States), the one-child policy has led to millions of sex-selection
abortions favoring males, resulting in huge social problems that come with a huge shortage
of women, including kidnapping women from neighboring countries to serve as brides for
Chinese men.
Appealing to the “right to privacy” cannot be absolutized. If one’s private religious
convictions demanded that he hold slaves, have many wives, discriminate against blacks, or
mutilate Asians, these same liberal defenders of personal rights and freedoms would seek for
legislation to stop him. The key questions are: Whose rights—those of the mother or the
unborn? and, which rights—the right to life of the infant or some lesser rights of the mother?
As we’ve noted, half a loaf is better than none, and political debate may involve
compromises on policy—though not on principle—in order to save as many lives as
possible. For example, it is better to work toward laws prohibiting late-term abortions and
taxpayer funding for abortions, requiring that parents be notified before their pregnant
teenage daughter has an abortion, or requiring that an expecting mother see her child on a
sonogram before choosing abortion, even if this means permitting abortion in cases of, say,
rape or incest. After all, hard cases make bad laws. So while we should do all we can to
protect innocent human life, on a political level we may need to work incrementally. All the
while, we should seek, with God’s help, to change hearts and minds through education,
persuasion and even conversion rather than forcing legislation on an unpersuaded
population; this would likely both create a cultural backlash and harm the cause for
defending unborn life.
Furthermore, the church needs to challenge the presumed individualism embedded in the
pro-abortion position. For example, if a teenage girl in our public school systems takes an
aspirin at school, the school nurse notifies her parents; if she becomes pregnant, she can have
an abortion without parental notification. It is this autonomous individualism that strikes at
the heart of human community, which should welcome other humans, no matter how small.
The presumed sovereignty of the individual opposes the fact that life is a sovereignly
bestowed divine gift—one which humans can neither give nor take away. To seek meaning
and fulfillment within one’s own inner being fails to understand the kinds of commitments
and virtuous character that make life meaningful. In word and deed, Christians should
oppose such shallow individualism. They can model what true human community in Christ
—the truest human—should look like. They can dedicate themselves to being a caring,
loving community (Jn 13:35)—one that displays the beauty of a divinely grounded “culture
of life” by welcoming children into our midst and caring for the helpless of all ages. This
community in Christ has the privilege of persuading hearts and minds about the necessary
protection of the most helpless of humans and of advocating for laws respecting human life
from conception to natural death. As we have noted, a caring community demonstrates and
nurtures what true humanity looks like.
Further Reading
Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion
Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Hong, Edna. Bright Valley of Love. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979.
Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2009.
Moreland, J. P., and Scott B. Rae. Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in
Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
23Suicide, Euthanasia and Other Medical Ethical
Considerations
Suicide and euthanasia, like abortion and infanticide, have generated intense controversy
because of new attitudes developing in the West. And, we should add, biblical responses to
these issues are remarkably parallel to responses to abortion. As with abortion and
infanticide, Scripture does not address these issues directly. Until recently, the major church
bodies have always condemned all four activities as violations of the sixth commandment.
Not all societies have condemned suicide and euthanasia. In Japan, for example, suicide
to expiate one’s lost or threatened honor is heroic. Even as an escape from intolerable
circumstances, suicide is quite acceptable. Japanese Christians have spoken of the ecstatic
feeling of freedom they experienced in their pre-Christian days as they journeyed to some
special scenic spot, hallowed as the trysting place with death by countless suicides, and of
their disappointment when their plan for suicide was thwarted.
Now, increasing numbers in the West espouse similar views. Groups that endorse suicide
produce detailed handbooks on how it may best be committed. Scholars writing their tomes
and pragmatic lobbyists engaging in their state legislatures promote new ways for family and
others to find a “good death” (euthanasia) or “death with dignity” for the sufferer. The late
Jack Kevorkian (“Dr. Death”) dedicated himself to physician-assisted suicide for those
desiring his services.
Why the new, more lenient attitudes? Do they well up from long-suppressed reservoirs of
compassion, or do they come from an overall depreciation of the value of life? If a person is
no more than a time-bound animal produced by valueless, mindless, material processes,
having no hope beyond the grave, why should human life be viewed as “sacred”?
The Christian view of mortal human life is both higher and lower than the secularist’s. It
is higher because humans are created in God’s image, belong to God and will continue to live
beyond death. The secularist views humans as advanced rational animals facing extinction.
On the other hand, to the Christian, our earthly human life is temporary and not the ultimate
value; for the secularist, this life is the only existence humans will ever have, and so any
value—perhaps ultimate value—is to be found in their earth-bound life.
Thus, in the paradox, to the believer life and death are simultaneously more significant
and less significant than to the unbeliever. True believers do not cling to life because they
cannot lose it and because it does not belong to them anyway. In fact, by losing our lives, as
Christ commanded, rather than by grasping or clutching it, we find it in its full, true meaning.
We become truly human in the likeness of Jesus, the archetype of humanity. On the other
hand, life is a gift from God and belongs ultimately to him. We do not “own” our lives or
have an intrinsic “right” to life; rather we hold it in sacred trust as one of the highest values.
One’s own life is not higher in value than truth, honor, justice and love, for example. But
certainly the life of another is a far higher value than one’s own higher comfort, ease,
material prosperity, or a host of other self-oriented rights and privileges. Indeed, Scripture
treats human life as so sacred that a society’s view of the value of human life is a sure test of
its moral integrity and social durability.
Suicide
Suicide as a sin.Hemlock Society founder Derek Humphry wrote a 1991 bestseller, Final
Exit, subtitled The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the
Dying. Though written for those terminally ill and seeking “quiet release,” this type of book
could “assist” the hundreds of thousands of teenagers who “fail” in their suicide attempts. If
a person is master of his fate, why not expand the possibility of suicide to the physically
healthy but despairing in mind? In his book Humphry writes, “If you consider God the
master of your fate, read no further. Seek the best pain management available and arrange
hospice care.”[1]
Suicide is wrong because it violates the prohibition of intentionally taking innocent
human life. It is nowhere condoned in Scripture either directly or by implication.
Nevertheless, difficult problems inhere in this prohibition and seem to cluster around two
opposite poles. At one pole, is suicide so light a sin, so unlike murder, that attempted suicide
should go unpunished? At the other extreme, is successful suicide an unpardonable sin?
How wrong is suicide? There is tension between two biblical principles. Believers are not
the owners of their bodies, and the same is true for unbelievers—life is a gift from God,
whether one acknowledges God or not. Furthermore, the believer’s body is the home—the
temple—of God himself. So suicide is very serious—a violation of our creation and
redemption. On the other hand, our lives belong to us in a sense that others’ lives do not, so
that violence to our own body would seem to be less a sin than violence to another’s body.
How bad a sin is suicide? No matter how we may seek to excuse suicide, it is a sin
requiring repentance and God’s forgiveness. The act of suicide is not against oneself alone.
Others are affected, often tragically. Many times this is the deliberate intent. Yet suicide may
well reveal a failure of the community to care for the desperately needy in its midst.
However, no matter how serious a sin, it is certainly forgivable, as any other sin. The
difference between this sin and most others is that for other sins there is normally a period of
grace following the sin to permit repentance. Repentance is necessary to restore fellowship
broken through sin (1 Jn 1:8). Yet theologians who believe one’s salvation can never be lost
—and those who believe it can be—typically deny that a single sin would forfeit salvation.
Would a Christian, suddenly enraged and suffering a heart attack, go to meet God
unforgiven? Is anger in such circumstances an unpardonable sin? No, a suicide of one of
God’s children, though “crashing uninvited” into God’s presence, is not unpardonable to the
Father because of One who deliberately gave his own life to forgive all of our sins ( Col
2:13).
Suicide as a crime. Suicide is clearly a sin, violating God’s law, but American society
does not treat it as a crime—those who attempt suicide are not prosecuted as attempted
murderers. Neither do we punish people who deceive themselves, who destroy or waste their
own possessions. We may think them misguided or sick, but not criminal, as would be the
case if they did these things to others. The government has a responsibility to protect against
the taking of innocent human life, but since suicide has not been treated as a crime, it may be
difficult to punish those who assist others’ suicides.
Even so, assisting with suicide should not be decriminalized. This involves the intentional
taking of another innocent human life. Throughout history, doctors swearing by the ancient
Hippocratic Oath have vowed, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it,
nor will I make the suggestion to this effect.” This oath stood in opposition to abortion as
well. The vocation of doctors is to help, not harm—to heal, not annihilate. They promise not
to kill even when asked to do so. It is not compassionate to take another’s life when asked—
no more so than if a doctor complied when asked by his patient to have sex with him because
she was lonely and needy.
The practice of medicine requires personal confidentiality and profound trust. And if a
doctor is legally permitted to kill, how could any patient entrust herself to him? As Stanley
Hauerwas writes, “It may be that the demand for euthanasia comes because we lack the skills
humanely to know how to be with and care for the dying Humans never kill more readily
than when we kill in the name of mercy.”[2] Often “mercy” at the end of life springs not from
compassion but from inconvenience. Though we do not seek suffering, we must recognize
that we cannot insulate ourselves from it or from the suffering who need our compassion.
This means caring for those who cannot care for themselves, refusing to give up on those
who themselves feel like giving up.
Self-sacrifice. Self-sacrificially laying down one’s life for another is not sinful suicide. If
it were, God himself would be the guiltiest. No one took Christ’s life from him. He laid it
down of his own volition (Jn 10:18). In fact, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13 RSV). Far from being the worst of crimes, it is the
greatest of virtues. The mother allowing herself to starve in order to feed her children, the
friend leaving another with the life jacket and swimming off into the night—these are heroes,
not sinners.
Refusing medical care. Another form of self-chosen death that can hardly be considered
sinful or criminal is refusing necessary medical attention—foolish, perhaps, but not sinful.
We do not agree with those who think that using medicine is wrong—that it is a sign of
unbelief. That said, it would be very difficult, on biblical grounds, to condemn as sinful or
criminal those who choose “the way of faith.” The Bible is full of promises about God’s
healing power, even if incidental passages show a lower regard for medical procedures
(e.g., Mk 5:26). And Paul himself advises Timothy to take wine for his stomach’s sake (1
Tim 5:23).
Throughout Scripture, we see instances of trusting in God’s deliverance from death or
sickness—although with an assumption that while God can readily heal or deliver, he is
not obligated to: “He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not . . .”
(Dan 3:17-18). Yet we also see sickness as an inevitable part of a fallen world (2 Cor 12:7-
10; Phil 2:26-27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20; Jas 5:14-15). This is not the place to present
scriptural evidence that medical help is not only legitimate, but a gift of God; indeed, it is
part of God’s common grace to humankind. However, we must grant liberty to those who
interpret Scripture to mean that the way of faith precludes medical help.
One final word concerning the ethics of suicide. Often in the life of the victim of suicide
there are those who deliberately or through insensitivity helped create an environment that
the suicidal person eventually judged to be intolerable. In the final analysis, though, a person
is responsible for her own choices; the family and friends of the victim cannot bear the guilt
of that person’s choice. Repentance may be needed for whatever real or imagined complicity
may exist, but to continue to bear a burden of guilt is to deny the grace of God.
Euthanasia
In 1900, the average life expectancy in the United States was 48 years. A third of all
children died before the age of 18, and epidemics and infectious diseases took the lives of
many children and adults in the twentieth century. But we also saw breakthroughs, with
Fleming’s discovery of penicillin (1943), effective treatment for tuberculosis (1951), dialysis
for kidney failure (1960) and vaccinations to prevent the spread of infectious disease. Thus
by 2011, the average life expectancy in the United States had risen to 77.9 years—a thirty-
year jump in a little over a century! This means that people are living longer, but this often
comes with debilitation later in life.[3] Serious debilities may prompt some to take their own
lives—or to seek the assistance of others in doing so.
Killing others deliberately, whatever the motive, violates God’s law and should be
condemned by human law. But what of the agony of seeing a loved one suffer—or of the
burden of astronomical medical costs in prolonging the dying process?
Though not directly related to euthanasia, the Danish, in a national display of courage,
went to great lengths to protect vulnerable Jews during World War II. When other nations,
including the United States, were turning away imperiled Jews, the Danish government not
only resisted Nazi demands to hand them over; it also raised funds to provide passage to
Sweden by boat to tens of thousands of them. Despite great risks, the Danish were a beautiful
display of a life-affirming culture. How we treat life—from the unborn in the womb to those
dying while under hospice care—is an indication of how civilized or uncivilized we are.
How we treat individual human life—especially the weak and vulnerable—is a test of not
only society’s moral integrity, but also its social durability.
Caring versus curing. Many have recognized that caring for those with chronic illness
reveals the kind of people we are. In sacrificially caring for others, we celebrate a love for
life—for theirs and ours—as well as the God who sovereignly gives life as well as calls us to
be a caring community.[4] Doctors and other caregivers must always care, even when they
cannot cure. Though incurable diseases and terminally ill patients may be a blow to the pride
of doctors, incurability does not justify euthanizing patients. We must recognize inevitable
human limitations, the inescapability of death and the moral obligation to care even when
there is no cure.
Distinctive physical conditions: Brain death, persistent vegetative state and coma. It
may be helpful here to distinguish between three relevant medical conditions.[5] Brain
death occurs when certain cerebral functions are lost—consciousness/awareness, motor
control, and brain-stem functions such as cough and gag reflexes, eye movement and
respiration. This is commonly taken to be a leading indicator of death. Brain death—in
conjunction with heart and lung death—are key indicators of the cessation of earthly life.
Persistent vegetative state (PVS) is an irreversible condition resulting from damaged
cerebral hemispheres, though with a continued functioning brain stem, which is not as
vulnerable to lack of oxygen and blood flow. Gag- and cough-reflexes remain with an eyes-
open consciousness and wake-sleep cycles. This condition can continue indefinitely.
A comatose state is an eyes-closed, sleeplike state of unarousability due to extensive
damage to the reticular activating system—a network of intercellular fibers—of the brain
stem. The coma can be “transient” (diabetic coma) or permanent. If the patient does not
recover, the coma either turns to brain death or PVS state.
Active and passive euthanasia. Though there are exceptions (e.g., ectopic pregnancy),
intentionally taking innocent human life is wrong. This is fundamental to the ancient
Hippocratic Oath—from the beginning of life (refusing to give an abortion-inducing drug) to
the end of life (refusing to assist in bringing about someone’s death, even if asked). Unlike
the late Jack Kevorkian, doctors by definition ought to care even when they cannot cure.
They should always refuse to take innocent life.
Ethicists have distinguished between active and passive euthanasia. Actively promoting
death has been universally condemned in the Western world under the Hippocratic Oath,
taken by all medical practitioners until recently. Passive euthanasia, by contrast, is morally
permissible since it is the dying process—indicated by, though not restricted to, the shutting
down of the three “great organs” (heart, lungs, brain)—that kills a person; it is not due to
withdrawing or withholding medical treatment such as a respirator or a heart machine.
Because removing these machines does not produce death, one cannot rightly view this
action as the intentional taking of innocent human life.
There are some distinctions to make related to active and passive euthanasia.
Withholding and withdrawing. Another distinction—but one without a difference—
is withdrawing and withholding medical care. Ethically speaking, these are identical.
While withholding medical treatment is sometimes viewed as immoral by some, more will
likely feel guilty for taking a person off life-support (withdrawing) because they incorrectly
think that withdrawing somehow causes death. In actual fact, it is the dying process already
at work in the body that brings about death, not the withdrawal of technology. A terminally ill
patient taken off a ventilator might continue to breathe on her own, but if she dies, it is
because her body has been shutting down.
The “principle of double-effect” is relevant here. For example, to ease pain with
morphine, say, while one is dying may slightly hasten death. But the intention is not to
facilitate death but simply to make the patient more comfortable.
In contemplating these matters, we should avoid two opposite extremes—trying to hasten
death and refusing to acknowledge inevitable death. There comes a point when fighting
death is useless and we should thus recognize we are not under obligation to try to prolong
the inevitable. On the other hand, we should not hasten the coming of death either. Neither
trying to hasten death nor prolonging it unnecessarily counts as care for fellow humans.
Actually, each is a form of abandonment rather than caring.[6]
Ordinary and heroic. Another distinction divides medical techniques into ordinary and
heroic. The distinction, particularly at the borderline between the two, is difficult to draw.
But the reasoning is clear that when a person faces certain, imminent death, it is morally
permissible to withdraw—or refrain from using—the kind of extraordinary (and expensive)
treatment that would be mandatory when the dying process can be reversed, say, when a
person is in a coma after an auto accident. A terminally ill person may choose to stay at home
under hospice care—with only a portable oxygen tank and morphine injections as needed—
rather than undergo chemotherapy with the slimmest chance of success. The real-life
situation is always complex, but the distinction is legitimate and may prove helpful on
occasion.
Note that this argument applies only to those who are clearly in the irreversible process of
dying and is not legitimate in the treatment of infants, for example, who could, with medical
assistance, live many years. Extraordinary measures are justified to buy time for additional
treatment or for the patient’s normal organ functions again to take over. If the organs such as
the kidneys or liver—but, particularly, the great organs—can no longer function, such means
are no longer justified.
Normal and “heroic”: Nutrition, hydration and medical treatment. A young Florida
woman, Terri Schiavo, had her feeding tube removed in March 2005 even though she was
not dying. She was in a persistent vegetative state, having eyes-open consciousness and the
ability to express herself in limited ways to those caring for her. Despite her biological
family’s commitment to care for her, Schiavo’s husband, who was engaged to another
woman with whom he had two children, insisted—without supporting documentation—that
his wife would have wanted her feeding tube removed. Schiavo was starved to death.
All things being equal, nutrition and hydration are normal and expected for the
sustenance of the body—for basic survival. Food and water are not technically “medical
care,” which targets a particular pathology or wards off some attack on bodily well-being
(therapeutic). Removing food and water, however, is to remove normal care, and this will
inevitably result in death. To give dehydrated patients intravenous fluids to hydrate them is
not a “heroic measure.” Yes, this may be “artificial,” but isn’t using a spoon or bottle-feeding
a baby with formula as well?[7]
Now, in special cases, a dying person may simply stop eating—a common sign that the
body is shutting down and that death is near. Or, if a dying person is unconscious and on the
brink of death, administering food and water at this stage will make no actual difference. In
such extreme cases, food and water are actually unnecessary in the caregiving process. And
the condition of some patients may well mean that eating even puréed food brings on the risk
of choking and breathing difficulty.
One further matter: studies have shown that tube-feeding (“enteral feeding”) certain
patients—those with advanced dementia, for instance—who cannot be fed orally may come
with various risks. Also, this procedure may offer no significant advantage for them in
prolonging survival, improving function, or increasing weight gain.[8]
Responsibility in decision making. For whatever reason, a person has the right to refuse
medical treatment, which should not be misunderstood as promoting the taking of innocent
life. Those who counsel the sufferer, whether pastor, family, physician or friends, have the
ethical responsibility to assist him in making his own free, informed choice and to refrain
from any subtle influence, not to speak of psychological coercion or social manipulation.
We said earlier that all human beings are created with a fundamental dignity that cannot
be diminished or taken away based on the stage of one’s life or one’s level of function. Yet
some promote a “death with dignity,” which typically assumes a person can “take control” of
her final moments—even to end her own life.
We would say three things in response. First, there is no dignity in taking one’s own life
—or being assisted in doing so; life is a gift from God, and taking one’s own life is an affront
to the Creator. Surely we would not want to say to a severely depressed, but otherwise
healthy, twenty-five-year-old that he can justifiably commit suicide—to “die with dignity” in
the name of autonomy. No, dignity involves much more than life-or-death choices, and the
most fundamental dignity of all—the universal dignity of human life—is not something we
chose or of which we can rid ourselves.
Second, there are, frankly, many indignities and embarrassments that come at the end of
life—loss of bowel function, having a disfiguring or disabling stroke, falling on one’s face
while having a heart attack. Medical personnel and family should do what they can to show
grace and to prevent anything undignified to intrude, even if there may be indignities.
Third, preserving autonomy is one way to prevent a number of potential indignities near
death. If we can speak of death with dignity here, it will involve the knowledge that one is
dying, that one can still make decisions about medical treatment as much as possible, that
one can stay connected with family and friends throughout the dying process, and that one
can maintain one’s personal and professional obligations and affairs as well as set one’s
house in order before death. This ability to contemplate life’s meaning in the face of death
and to prepare for it is what separates us from dumb animals, which we put to sleep in the
face of death. We treat animals “humanely” by doing so, but we treat persons “humanly”
by refusing to do so.[9]
Even before end-of-life issues become a reality, living wills or directives should be
prepared while a person is clear-thinking and can express her preferences about how much or
how little medical technology should be used, what additional measures, if any at all, should
be taken in the event of terminal illness and loss of sufficient cognizance.
Blessings and burdens. Serious talk of doing away with those who do not have a “useful
life,” who suffer greatly, or who are a “burden” to themselves, their families or society is a
sure indication of moral decadence. This should serve as a warning sign of the demise of a
civilization that no longer holds human life to be inviolable.
The late Christian statesman John Stott reflected on this idea of “being a burden”:
I sometimes hear old people, including Christian people who should know better, say, “I
don’t want to be a burden to anyone else. I’m happy to carry on living so long as I can look
after myself, but as soon as I become a burden I would rather die.” But this is wrong. We are
all designed to be a burden to others. You are designed to be a burden to me and I am
designed to be a burden to you. And the life of the family, including the life of the local
church family, should be one of “mutual burdensomeness.” “Carry each other’s burdens, and
in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).[10]
Thus, Stott concluded, if the God of the universe himself became dependent—from total
reliance on Mary as a baby to his outstretched arms hanging on a cross at the end of his
ministry—then there is nothing undignified or demeaning about our depending on one
another.
Medical Ethical Concerns
Jesus is “the great physician.” Historically Christians have been on the forefront of
medical care—founding Good Samaritan hospitals, giving generously to benevolent causes
and pioneering in medical advances and in the advance of medicine worldwide. In fact, the
bioethics movement in the early 1960s was inspired by Christians concerned for the sanctity
of human life. As we noted, the “founding fathers” of bioethics, Daniel Callahan and Paul
Ramsey, stated that it was theological resources that gave ethical shape to this emerging
discipline. In a utilitarian-dominated society and with the discipline of bioethics becoming
increasingly secularized, the Christian doctrine of the image of God and the moral
fruitfulness of the biblical outlook should be articulated and defended in order to give
bioethics much-needed grounding and guidance.
Today there has been an explosion of medical possibilities that present challenges,
opportunities and dangers—eugenics, cloning, fetal experimentation. The term bioethics has
been coined to reflect the broadening scope of medical ethics. It is more than the proper
application of medical procedure to the patient. Issues of preventive medicine, the
discovering and potential use of technologies, the allocating of resources, and other
macroethical issues are also involved. The relationship between the medical practitioner and
the scientist, politician and economist has, it seems, become more significant than that of the
medical practitioner and the pastor. The church should be well-informed on these bioethical
issues, speak wisely about them in our culture and not overlook the need for a
compassionate, caring ministry toward individuals.
Guidelines. The Bible obviously does not speak directly to many of the issues raised by
the discovery of new technologies. In biblical times “balms” (Jer 8:22), “oils” (Is 1:6; Lk
10:34; Jas 5:14) and “a little wine” (1 Tim 5:23) were prescribed for various maladies. Luke
the evangelist was also a physician (Col 4:14). But medicine was rudimentary; so in facing
today’s complex world of medicine, biblical principles rather than mandates must be our
focus. Medical ethics must be considered within the framework of several clear biblical
principles:
1. God’s love for people extends to their bodies, which he made. An aspect of God’s
desire for all to be saved (2 Pet 3:9) is God’s desire that humans care for others, including
physically.
2. God’s ultimate purpose in Christ includes ending all sickness and suffering. He will
do this through the bodily resurrection of believers and the restoration of creation.
3. Human sickness and suffering are a result of the fall, the effects of which will be felt
by all until Christ’s return. It is both a judgment on sin (1 Cor 11:30) and a prod to deal with
eternal matters before death. C. S. Lewis said that pain is God’s “megaphone” to rouse a deaf
world.
4. We are all dying and will eventually die. Divine intervention alone—not human
ingenuity—can rescue human beings from death’s consequences.
5. As Christ ministered to those who suffered because of sickness through understanding
and direct intervention, so should the followers of Christ. Such Christlike ministry
distinguishes between those who are his and those who merely profess to know him (Mt
25:31-46).
6. Sickness and suffering may result from the lack of care given by a preoccupied
society (e.g., nakedness, hunger), from the natural and just consequences of immoral actions
(e.g., imprisonment, drug addiction), or from no more than living in a sin-cursed world (e.g.,
death, harm or deprivation through earthquake or famine). In any event, it is always right to
care for the sick and suffering with empathy and grace. Sickness and suffering will not
always be overcome.
7. Though some are specifically gifted and called into a vocational medical ministry, all
believers are responsible before God to care for sick (physically and mentally) believers and
unbelievers alike. Care providers should be guided more by where the need is than by
financial reward.
8. Caring for the sick is not an end in itself. It is evidence of a higher calling (the gospel)
and of a greater solution (the restoration of all things). The worst humans can suffer is
alienation from God. Ultimate liberation comes not from the eradication of disease or
poverty, but from reconciliation with God.
9. Advances in medical science (as in all other branches of science), far from being
unwarranted meddling in the affairs of God, can actually be to the glory of God. God calls us
who bear his image to participate with him in creativity—what theologians call the “cultural
mandate.” This is not to justify the arrogance of a scientist who does not acknowledge God,
or the sinfulness of those who use scientific advances for selfish or malicious purposes.
10. Christians should always pray for the sick, but never merely pray for the sick. We
proposed earlier that even for the patient who is not given every life-sustaining procedure
possible, care and support are essential—even when a cure is not possible.
11. Those with the gift of healing and the gift of faith can engage in a remarkable
ministry to show forth the healing power of God in Christ’s name. This important ministry is
making a global impact and has been well-documented: “the prayer offered in faith will
restore the one who is sick” (Jas 5:15).[11]
12. Since medical resources are not unlimited, the allocation of such resources must take
into account the value of all people as well as the necessity to prioritize the amount and kind
of care for individuals. For example, expenditures and efforts for a liver transplant for an
alcoholic should be less of a priority than for a newborn child with a poorly functioning liver.
We have already begun to address medical ethical issues pertaining to abortion and
euthanasia, and we address more concerns below.
Artificial insemination. Artificial insemination is the act of depositing male semen by
syringe or some other instrument into a woman’s vaginal or cervical area rather than through
sexual intercourse (coitus). In the Old Testament, there is the practice of not-so-artificial
insemination by the brother of a deceased man who marries his widow to perpetuate his
name (Deut 25:5-10)—a practice called “levirate marriage” (levir is Latin for “brother-in-
law”). In this unique case, of course, not just any male could perform this “service.”
In our day, artificial insemination is common—a somewhat routine expectation for
infertile couples. This practice raises many ethical questions, however. Isn’t artificial
insemination legitimate—the assumption goes—if the goal is to produce children a couple
can love and care for? But, some may object, doesn’t artificial insemination violate the
marriage bond? And what happens to unused embryos?
Now, inseminating a wife with her husband’s sperm—AIH (artificial insemination by the
husband)—wouldn’t qualify as adultery in any sense. But what about sperm from an outside
party, or AID—artificial insemination by the donor? And a further question: Is there anything
problematic with a surrogate mother, in whose womb a doctor implants a fertilized egg to
carry a child to term for an infertile wife?
The Bible does not speak to these issues directly. Some might claim that the child seems
more like a “product,” while others would say that this is a corrective procedure, much like
correcting bad vision through Lasik surgery. Although we do not find any direct Scripture to
forbid artificial insemination, it nevertheless seems to stir deep psychological reactions in
many people—and with good reason.
For one thing, given the capacities of modern technology, it is possible for a child to have
up to five “parents”: two genetic “parents” from whom the sperm and ovum come;
the surrogate mother who carries the child to term; the two rearing parents (who need not be
the same as the genetic parents). In considering this alone, we begin to see the moral and
legal problems coming into view.
Further, medical procedures for insemination certainly do not unite as “one flesh” the two
participants, and the deeper unity of spirit is absent altogether. Normally the donor is not
even known to the recipient. While artificial insemination does not fall into the category of
“adultery,” most people testify of a certain moral hesitancy. Does this uneasiness about the
procedure hint of a missing deeper level of unity—namely, the deep mystery of marital
partnership in creating life? And it is an unreasonable guilt felt by the partner who “failed” in
the creative process—a trauma many infertile couples have experienced. However, one can
sympathize with a kind of “jealousy” of one partner over a child that derives from his mate
though not from him; indeed, this may be a source of continuing unease.
Also, AID and surrogate motherhood wrongly presuppose a “right” to “possess” a child
and to “find fulfillment” in having one. The tragic irony of the abortion industry (presently at
1.6 million per year) is that a tiny minority of couples go to often excruciating, costly lengths
to conceive. Even so, there is a moral significance to biological parenthood, which
brings with it a historical task of rearing, nurturing and civilizing the succeeding generation.
Parenthood is not simply life-giving but love-giving; it is procreation, not simply
reproduction.[12]
A further problem with artificial insemination is the depersonalization of the child. Sperm
and egg become more like a commodity. A child’s history is lost or diminished in the sterility
of a sperm bank and an anonymous donor. Normal family life is upended by women who
don’t “need” men but want to have their own children; thus a child is automatically deprived
of the equally important father figure in the home. In fact, studies have shown that the
majority of children of anonymous sperm donors face personal identity issues. They can’t
answer common questions about their family background (ethnicity, history) and are often
pained when their peers can. Many of them desire to know about and connect with the sperm
donor’s family, even insisting they have a right to know.[13]
As for surrogate motherhood specifically, simply consider the conflicts between
Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 16–17, 21. Also, surrogate motherhood
leaves us wondering: Who is the mother? Who lays greater moral claim to the child—the
“hiring” mother or the childbearing mother? Some might offer this counter-response: “But
isn’t adoption similar to surrogacy?” No, it is not. With adoption, the child isn’t conceived in
order to be given up. Rather, the child is on the scene, and his presence requires care. With
surrogacy, by contrast, the child becomes an object and (if money is paid to the surrogate) a
commodity. What makes this all the more difficult is the maternal instinct that is involved,
which is intensified by the gestation process, which leads to emotional bonding and
heightens the anticipation of birth. Giving up the child to the parents who “hired” the
surrogate is often gut wrenching.[14]
Furthermore, a serious drawback to artificial insemination is that it typically involves the
discarding of unused human embryos, which begin to deteriorate after about seven years.
Some infertile couples have, rightly, attempted to rescue unborn humans involved in this
misguided practice of embryo storage; this endeavor is called “embryo adoption,” in which
unused fertilized eggs are made available to infertile couples in hopes of possible future
implantation.[15]
If God is the one who opens the womb and shuts it (Gen 29–30; 1 Sam 1:5; Ps 127:3; Is
66:9), if children are his heritage, perhaps we should stand back and allow him to continue to
play this role, trusting him to fulfill some higher purpose in withholding children.
Alternatives include adoption and the wonderful surprise of late pregnancies. Also, in the
providence of God, childless couples often have made very unique contributions to the
kingdom of God because of the special resources available through their childless
circumstances.
Since this is a contemporary issue not directly addressed in Scripture, we offer this
analysis as our conviction about the implications of certain scriptural moral principles related
to the issue.
Stem cell research. What are stem cells? These are the source of over two hundred kinds
of tissue in the body. They have the quality of being “pluripotent”—the capacity to develop
into different cell types: “When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to
remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a
muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.”[16] Various celebrities and politicians have
advocated that embryonic stem cell research should be given ample government funding in
the pursuit of curing diseases. There are ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research,
however. Obtaining these cells—usually from unused embryos at fertility clinics—involves
killing unborn humans, which is morally wrong.
By contrast, using adult stem cells is not morally problematic. (Nor is using the detached
umbilical cord of a newborn baby.) These pluripotent cells are taken from places such as the
placenta, upper nasal cavity, bone marrow or fat; they are then cultivated and injected back
into the human body. Adult stem cell research is not only morally permissible; this avenue
has proven vastly more fruitful than embryonic sources. It has helped cure or lessen the
effects of diseases and physical problems such as spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and blindness.[17] From a moral and practical point of view, adult
stem cell research is the way to proceed.
Organ transplants and artificial organs. These seem to fall within the “creation
mandate” involved in ruling with earth with God; this task of rectifying a problem in a
human body is not “playing God.” It is hard to see how this process can be ethically different
from creating an artificial limb. Of course, there are many ethical questions involved, such as
determining when the prospective donor is dead, but there can hardly be moral objections to
the process itself.
“Improving” humans through genetics and technology.Futurist Ray Kurzweil has
claimed that by the year 2045, a new species will evolve from the merging of humans and
machines. University of Reading cybernetics professor Kevin Warwick has called himself the
first “cyborg”: he has had silicon microchips implanted in his body that send signals to a
computer that tracks his movements on campus, opening doors and turning on lights for him.
This combination of biology and technology, it is claimed, can enhance and expand limited
human capacities to evolve into mentally, socially and medically improved “post humans.”
Will such endeavors enhance or enslave humans? What assumptions does such an endeavor
make about human nature, about our problem and the solution to it? Do humans really need
God? Are our fundamental problems spiritual and moral, or can we “save” ourselves through
technology? Will such technology ultimately dehumanize and, as at Babel (Gen 11), further
alienate us from God—and from our own selves?[18]
Or consider the breathtaking Human Genome Project—a three-billion-dollar, twenty-year
international study, designed to identify the one hundred thousand genes located in human
chromosomes. Our chromosomes are responsible for transmitting hereditary traits, and it
turns out that more than fifteen hundred diseases have been identified as being genetically
transmitted. “Gene therapy” has been shown effective in the prevention of cystic fibrosis, for
example. So, can it be morally wrong to seek the elimination of these when it can be done
without bad side effects?
Are there any boundaries beyond which we should not go? When it comes to genetic
therapies, we can say that these should not be used to create “designer” babies with a certain
eye, hair or skin color and genetic enhancements for athletes—all reminiscent of Nazi
aspirations and creaturely hubris. Rather, such treatments of individuals should
be corrective or reparative, where there is a significant departure from the way our
bodies were designed to function. Such treatments of individual patients are
called somatic (“body”) cell therapy, and these are morally permissible as
a corrective measure. In this case, the genetic change dies when the individual dies. By
contrast, germ cell therapy is morally troubling. This therapy attempts to correct the genes to
be passed on to future generations. This has ominous implications and limitless potential for
harm.
The attempt to reshape the human genome or create “cyborgs” reminds us of Victor
Frankenstein’s creature in Mary Shelley’s novel. We are limited intellectually, spiritually and
morally to undertake such momentous pursuits. Ethicist Gilbert Meilaender writes: “When
we take up the project of shaping future generations in so fundamental a way, we cannot
really know what good or ill we may accomplish—we cannot, that is, really know what
project we undertake. We may even wonder whether such a project . . . is really part of
medicine. For the ‘patient’ is no longer any particular suffering human being, but
humankind.”[19]This tempting project would shape humanity in a fundamental way. Though
this may be well-motivated in part, we should exercise our God-given freedom by humbly
saying no to making humankind itself our patient. The specter of Huxley’s Brave New
World has never been so present as it is now in the biological manipulation of humanity.
Genes—and technology—have a shaping effect on human identity. How can it be right to
orchestrate the “evolution of humanity” to create a super race through government control?
C. S. Lewis feared experimental genetics more than nuclear destruction because of its
potential to threaten the identity of humanity itself—the rule of a few hundred humans over
billions of others. “Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance
leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who
triumphs, he is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal car.”[20]
We confess a deep hesitancy, not to say revulsion, about the use of psychosurgery, mind-
altering drugs and technologies, and the cloning of a whole individual. Humility, restraint
and resistance are called for in the face of such fearful capabilities and human finitude. The
far greater dangers lie with the morally and spiritually handicapped than with
the genetically handicapped.[21]
Plastic surgery. Humans look at the outward appearance while God looks at the heart (1
Sam 16:7). This is aptly illustrated in our youth culture’s fixation with cosmetic surgery.
While corrective procedures for physical abnormalities (e.g., cleft palates/lip) are
appropriate, cosmetic surgeries (facelifts, breast augmentation, liposuction) raise
fundamental moral and spiritual questions. We are not saying that cosmetic surgery is
inherently immoral. Being well-groomed and well-dressed, wearing braces for straightening
teeth, or putting on makeup to improve one’s appearance is not itself problematic. When God
entered into a covenant with Israel at Sinai, he said he adorned his bride with rings,
ornaments and fine clothing—and Israel grew beautiful (Ezek 16:10-14; cf. Is 61:10). The
problem was that Israel trusted in her beauty (Ezek 16:15).
Likewise, many trust in cosmetic surgery as a means to elevate self-esteem; they embrace
the myth that physical appearance determines psychological well-being. Ironically, patients
having undergone cosmetic surgery are more likely to become depressed after surgery.
[22] Fundamental questions are: What are the motivations for pursuing such “enhancements”?
Are we more preoccupied with improving our bodies than disciplining ourselves for the
purpose of godliness (1 Tim 4:7) and cultivating the inner person (1 Pet 3:4)? After all,
“charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting”—but not devotion to God (Prov 31:30 NIV). The
obsession for surgical beautifications and improvements is what the pagans pursue. Disciples
must seek first God’s kingdom (Mt 6:32-33).
Miscellaneous Life Issues
Negligence. Not all legally liable negligence is moral negligence, and very little that
constitutes moral culpability has been legislated against. For example, an automobile defect
or medical malpractice that is unintentional could well be subject to civil prosecution but not
be sinful negligence from a biblical point of view. If adequate precautions were not taken, the
moral element is introduced. For example, extensive correspondence by leading asbestos
manufacturers indicates that they knew very well the hazardous nature of the manufacture
and use of the product, but deliberately decided to continue manufacture. Since the results
are not fully manifest for several decades, the general public was not aware of this
negligence, which was certainly a moral failure.
As another example, a student told me (Robertson) of a part-time job on which he was
required to use hazardous chemicals. When state inspection time came, the chemicals were
hidden and the inspection passed. He and others continued in the employment of such an
unscrupulous employer because of economic necessity.
On the other hand, there are matters of negligence about which governments do not
ordinarily make laws. In Matthew 25, where the final judgment is previewed, we are taught
that neglecting Jesus’ disciples in need of food, clothing and care—“the least of these
brothers of mine” (Mt 25:40 NIV; cf. Mt 12:48-9)—is subject to the most severe judgment.
We could add that, since 80 percent of religious persecution today is against Christians,
fellow believers have a special obligation to be praying, materially assisting, raising
awareness and exerting social and legal pressure to bring such practices to an end.[23] More
generally, to respond to natural disaster that threatens the life or health of people is the
responsibility of believers to the extent of their ability (Prov 14:31). At least, to ignore
human problems that I could help is moral negligence, even though I may never be
prosecuted in a human court.
The potential for failure in negligence is virtually limitless. For this reason, we are called
on to be sensitive, compassionate people of integrity, recognizing our own great limitations
in wisdom and resources to meet human need, and pleading the grace of God to cover our
shortcomings.
Animal “rights.” Do animals have rights? Better questions seem to be, what is God’s
purpose for animals? How does God expect human beings to “rule over” (Gen 1:26)
animals?
Remember, animals and human beings share a similar “life” (Gen 1:30; 2:7). But there
are significant differences. It is precisely because humans are made in God’s image that they
have intrinsic dignity and rights—unlike animals. This personhood confers on us a certain
“moral shield.” Human beings have authority over animals. God instructed human beings to
name, to superintend (Gen 1:26-28) and to care for animals (Gen 2:15; 4:2). Humans have
the inherent capacity to relate to God; to exert free will; to act morally; to relate deeply; to be
self-reflective, conscious and rational; and to experience life beyond death. While animals
may be conscious (aware), humans are self-conscious; we are aware that we are aware and
can reflect on our own thoughts and actions, which enables us to think and act morally.
Even so, abusing or wantonly slaughtering animals is wrong (Prov 12:10; cf. Ex
23:5; Deut 5:14; 22:6-7); this is not because animals have inherent rights, but because such
actions are an abuse of our God-given human stewardship, of our responsibility to care for
creation. It would be wrong to raze a forest of majestic redwoods or sequoias, not because
trees have rights, but because humans would be misusing their power and would have
violated the Creator’s trust.
If we claim unlimited rights over animals merely because we have power over them, we
are functional Darwinists, modeling a survival-of-the-fittest paradigm. If we claim unlimited
control of animals using Genesis 1:28 as divine cover for our own fallen purposes, we do no
better. As divine image bearers, we are co-rulers with God over creation. God providentially
cares for his creation, and we have a mandate to join him in this care.
There is some debate about the status of animals before the fall. According to
some, Genesis 1:29-30 suggests wholesale vegetarianism before the fall. However, the text
does not require this (“I have given every green plant for food”—not “only green plants for
food”), and this text suggests God’s general provision for humans and animals from an
abundant earth. Furthermore, though not mentioned in Genesis, God apparently established a
“food chain” at creation. In Psalm 104, a creation psalm, the “lions roar for their prey and
seek their food from God” (Ps 104:21 NIV). These animals also die: “When you hide your
face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust” ( Ps
104:29 NIV). In the book of Job, God refers to his creation, which involves predatory
activity. Job 38:39-40 speaks of the prey of the lion and of lions crouching in wait in a
thicket. The hawk spies out prey from the rocky crags (Job 39:28-29), and its nestlings eat
the blood of it: “where the slain are, there is he.” God also created the “fierce” Leviathan—
probably the crocodile—with “fearsome teeth” (41:1, 10, 14). This food chain does not seem
to be a post-fall situation, and it is actually called “good” (Ps 104:27-28). The point
of Romans 5:12 is that human death—not animal (or plant) death—came at the fall.
Even texts that speak of the new heavens and new earth, where lamb and lion will
peacefully coexist, are difficult to interpret. They don’t necessarily imply an exact replica of
the Garden in Eden. After all, such texts mention that a youth will die at one hundred years
of age (Is 65:2). Pictures of a wolf grazing with the lamb or a lion eating straw like an ox
simply mean that once dangerous animals will be domesticated (“eat straw”)—not that lions
will have a ruminant’s teeth and digestive tract! After all, we read that no lion will be there in
God’s peaceable kingdom (Is 35:9).
Jesus was not a vegetarian. He himself would eat lamb at each Passover, and he ate fish
(Lk 24:42; cf. Mk 6:33-44; 8:1-9; Jn 21:9, 13). The Old Testament commanded the death of
animals to anticipate the death of Christ, and throughout Scripture we observe that animals
can be used to serve human ends as humans serve God’s ends (e.g., Lk 19:29-35). For
example, even though animals don’t have rights, they still could bring comfort or some level
of companionship to the elderly or unmarried. Dancing bears in the circus and playful otters
in a zoo can entertain and delight. As the BBC Planet Earth breathtaking video series and
John Stott’s delightful book The Birds Our Teachers illustrate, the wonders of the animal
kingdom—animals God created for his pleasure—can inspire a sense of awe for, and praise
to, the God of all creation.
As could be expected, the Bible does not address the question of animal experimentation.
Since there is no essential difference between consuming animals to feed human life and
consuming animals to promote the health of human life, we do not see a biblical prohibition
of it. Nevertheless, experimentation should never be trivial or unnecessary. As there is no
biblical prohibition against animal experimentation, neither do we see a requirement for it.
Similarly, any Christian who refuses to wear leather or fur should be free to refrain. But this
prohibition cannot be placed on others as the biblical mandate. The early church’s dispute
over meat offered to idols is somewhat similar to the question of eating meat today. Paul
says, “Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5 RSV), and “Everything
is indeed clean” (Rom 14:20 RSV).
Further Reading
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. www.cbhd.org/resources.
Mitchell, C. Ben, and D. Joy Riley. Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care
Professionals, and Families. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014.
Oderberg, David S. Applied Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. Chapter 3 (“Animals”).
Stott, John. The Birds Our Teachers: Biblical Lessons from a Lifelong Bird Watcher. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001. 24War and Peace
Time magazine noted that in the last thirty-five centuries of recorded history, only one out
of fifteen years has been without war.[1] In the 5,560 years of recorded human history there
have been 14,531 wars, for an average of 2.6 a year. Of 185 generations only 10 have known
unsullied peace. While some say we’re less violent now, others disagree “Since 1900 almost
100 million men have died in 100 wars—compared with 3,845,000 in the 19th century.”
Is war an unmitigated moral evil, the ultimate expression of human sinfulness? Or is war
sometimes just and necessary, and nonintervention or nonresistance a moral evil? Or is war
always wrong, though sometimes the lesser of two evils? Those who take the Bible seriously
and see war and violence as the evil result of our fallenness have a wide range of viewpoints.
Let us consider them under two broad categories: “nonresistance” and “justifiable force.”
Nonresistance
There are several varieties of nonresistance, or pacifism. The secular humanitarian and
the liberal churchman hold that war is immoral because of ethical principles derived in part,
perhaps, from Scripture, but primarily from philosophical reasoning. Among the various
biblically based peace churches there are two main lines of approach. There are those who
hold that it is wrong for the Christian to participate in war because war is intrinsically wrong;
and others hold that nonparticipation is part of the Christian’s special vocation as an elite
spiritual “priesthood” and “aristocracy,” but that some war by the secular state prosecuted by
unbelievers is justifiable.
Some historical considerations.Scholars such as historian Roland Bainton and
theologian John Howard Yoder have maintained that the church was uniformly nonmilitary
(“pacifistic”) from the second century till the rise of Constantine (A.D. 312), citing church
fathers Tertullian (160–225) and Origen (c. 185–254). They claim that the early church
refused any part in political power or the military violence of the Caesars’ wars.[2]
The evidence for this is not so tidy. For one thing, the New Testament itself is not
nonmilitaristic. It often speaks favorably of soldiers and centurions, including their piety,
conversions and baptisms (Mt 8:5-13; 27:54; Lk 3:14; Acts 10–11; 23:16-22). Jesus himself
used force to drive out moneychangers from the temple (e.g., Jn 2:14-15). Stephen and Paul
matter-of-factly endorsed the dispossession of the Canaanites (Acts 7:11; 13:19). Paul taught
that the God-ordained minister of the state bears a sword and has a divine duty to punish
evildoers (Rom 13:4). And the author of Hebrews commended those who “conquered
kingdoms,” “became mighty in war,” “put foreign armies to flight” (Heb 11:33-34).
After the New Testament and up to the mid-second century, we have silence on Christian
soldiers. But just after this time, we have clear evidence of Christian soldiers in the Roman
army. The Christian historian Eusebius records that when emperor Marcus Aurelius was
fighting the Germans and Sarmatians, his troops had no water; so Christian soldiers knelt
down and prayed, and water came from the heavens to refresh them. We also have tomb
inscriptions of Christian soldiers before Constantine, and St. Sebastian and many other
Christians served in the army under emperor Diocletian (early fourth century). We have
evidence of Christians fighting in Syria a whole century prior to Constantine and in Armenia
just before the rise of Constantine.
Furthermore, the nonmilitaristic perspective of several church fathers does not
necessarily represent a uniformly held, empire-wide Christian belief during this time. In fact,
we have indications in Tertullian’s own writings that there were Christians everywhere—in
“fortresses” (castella) and in the “military camp” (castra). Tertullian appears to shift from a
more tolerant attitude toward the military as more and more Christians were making military
life into a career. And Origen argues that Christians can better fight for the emperor through
prayers than with weapons; this suggests the possibility of a just war.
Beyond this, questions remain: If early Christians did reject fighting for Caesar, did this
imply a rejection of any possible military involvement whatsoever? Or was fighting for
Caesar different than fighting to stop, say, Nazi aggression? And could the fact that the
Caesars at particular times or places required idolatrous practices of soldiers be a major
reason for Christians abstaining from military service? And, as Rome had no police force,
many soldiers served in police-like functions, keeping order within the calmer empire—
unlike the more fierce fighting at the borders. At any rate, early Christian military
involvement didn’t require assistance from Constantine.[3]
After the rise of Constantine (see further comments on Constantine in chapter twenty-
nine), Ambrose of Milan (340–396) and then his disciple Augustine (345–430) would
advocate principles for a just war (see below)—a view that held sway until the twentieth
century. In the wake of the Reformation, Anabaptists took a nonresistance position. Even so,
the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession (article 6) affirms that the sword in the hands of
government is “ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ” and “punishes and puts to
death the wicked, and guards and protects the good.” The sword is “ordained to be used by
the worldly magistrates.” Contrary to many Christian pacifists in this tradition, this
confession observes that not all worldly power is inherently evil. More than nonresistance,
the foundational doctrine was total noninvolvement in the citizenships of this world.
Pacifism gradually emerged with clarity as a central doctrine for many Anabaptists, even
where persecution was no longer an issue. The early church, on the other hand, quickly gave
up the noninvolvement stance when persecution ceased and Christians were accepted by the
establishment.
In the twentieth century, many liberal Protestants became ardent pacifists—not from the
force of biblical teaching, but from an optimistic view of human goodness and the
perfectibility of society. After the horrors of World War I, many Western intellectuals and
other influencers endorsed pacifism and spoke of the folly of war for any side. Books such as
Hemmingway’s Farewell to Arms and Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western
Front became bestsellers. Pacifism dominated France, for example, which had lost over 1.3
million of its men in the “war to end all wars.” War came to be viewed as inherently evil as
well as tragic and pointless—without heroes and villains. France’s pacifism—not to mention
Britain’s mistaken hope for “peace in our time”—was not lost on the observant Hitler, who
would invade and overpower France in eight weeks, and he assumed that Britain would
similarly lack the will to defend itself.[4]
This pacifism went into retreat during World War II and reemerged with a different
rationale on the gradual realization of what nuclear warfare would mean. In this latter era,
many Roman Catholic leaders also entered the ranks of selective (nuclear) or full pacifism.
More recent scholarship in this tradition has included John Howard Yoder, Richard Hays,
Stanley Hauerwas and Greg Boyd.[5]
The example of Christ. The nonviolent resistance view is founded on the teaching and
example of Jesus Christ. Some pacifists believe that Christ’s teaching about “turning the
other cheek” and not resisting one that is evil (Mt 5:38-42) applies to nations as well as to
individuals. Other pacifists hold that this teaching applies only to believers. Love must not
harm—kill, for example—but turn the other cheek no matter what others do. Would Jesus
throw a grenade or take up a gun? What of the role of local police to protect innocent citizens
from criminals? And during a home invasion, should believers protect themselves and their
dependents from being raped, murdered or kidnapped? Won’t a predominantly pacifistic
nation be vulnerable to thugs and tyrants?
Those advocating nonviolent resistance and “just peacemaking” root their view in texts
emphasizing that Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world” (Jn 18:36) and that we don’t fight
with worldly weapons (2 Cor 10:4). Rather, we should love and pray for our enemies (Mt
5:44) and overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). Can we fight against those we are called to
love? Many pacifists consider any use of force immoral, and they point to Mahatma Gandhi
and Martin Luther King Jr. as examples of courageous nonviolent resistance that resulted in
lasting change. Gandhi asked whether there was any difference in fighting for liberty and
democracy or for totalitarianism when both leave behind the dead, the orphan and the
homeless. Christians should take the stance of a “presumption against war.”
Just War Theory
Just war theorists attempt to deal realistically with unpreventable violent aggression
against the vulnerable, and just war principles carry over to service in a police force. Just war
theory recognizes the justice of protecting innocent nations from thugs, bullies and tyrants. It
recognizes that attempts at negotiation and peacemaking with ruthless tyrants will often be
fruitless (e.g., the Munich Agreement of 1938). Against Gandhi, it does make a difference to
fight so that future generations might have greater opportunity, freedom, security and
protection of rights. Military historian Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that war or military
strength has helped bring an end to chattel slavery in America, Nazism, Fascism and Soviet
Communism. More often than not, wars break out not because of failure of communication
or misunderstanding—or from poverty or inequality. Rather, they begin from malicious
intent and the absence of deterrence—or because of lack of clear resolution or unresolved
disagreements from an earlier war. Often nations become accomplices to evil through
inaction.[6] On the fall side of Christ’s second coming, war will be with us.
Augustine created the first great synthesis of Christian faith and the practice of war. He
argued for the necessity of just wars. With rare exceptions Augustine’s defense of war—later
followed by Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius—became the standard position of all major
branches of the church from that day to this. Augustine argued that any justifiable war must
have peace as its goal. Just as God must judge and punish creatures he loves, just war should
be inspired not by hatred but by love for justice and peace and by concern for the oppressed.
The issue is not violence versus nonviolence, but just versus unjust uses of force. So, rather
than a “presumption against war,” our view advocates the presumption
of justice, which may or may not call for war.
There are seven stable and standard just war criteria, although they should not be
weighted equally. The first three take priority whereas the last four are more prudential and
should not outmaneuver the first three.[7]
1. Just Cause. All unprovoked aggression is condemned. A war for self-defense and
protection (including defense of other vulnerable nations) is morally legitimate. Following
this first criterion alone would eliminate all war and aggression.
2. Just Intent. The only legitimate intention is to secure a just or fair peace for friend and
foe alike, ruling out revenge, conquest, economic gain or ideological supremacy.
3. Lawful Declaration. Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments
—not of private individuals or parties within the state—a state of war must be officially
declared by a lawful government.
4. Last Resort. War may be entered into only when reasonable negotiations and
compromise have been tried and have failed. This does not mean gross injustices continue
alongside endless negotiations. Last resort is a prudential, secondary consideration, as are the
remaining criteria.
5. Limited Objectives. As the goal of a just war is peace, war should not be committed to
the destruction of another nation’s economy or its political institutions.
6. Limited/proportionate means. The weaponry and the force used should be limited to
what is needed to repel the aggression and deter future attacks—that is to say, to secure a just
peace.
7. Noncombatant immunity. Since war is an official act of government, only those who
are officially agents of government may fight, and individuals not actively contributing to the
conflict (including POWs, medical personnel and casualties, as well as civilian
nonparticipants) should be immune from attack—unless in cases of supreme emergency, as
noted above.
Some just war theorists will include a preemptive first strike if overriding evidence shows
that an unjust attack is pending—such as Israel’s attempting to protect itself in the 1967
Arab-Israeli War. Most contemporary Christian advocates of the just war position reject the
legitimacy of revolutions, crusades[8] and wars of liberation, even if fought in the name of
ethical principles rather than aggression or greed. These would be uncontrollable and
unjustifiable causes.
To all of this, the pacifist replies that neither the teaching and example of Christ nor the
evidence of history permit us to believe that any war is justifiable. So let us turn to the
biblical and theological data.
War and Peace in Biblical Perspective
War in the Old Testament.When war and peace are evaluated in the light of Scripture, it
is important to distinguish between Old Testament and New Testament teaching. In the Old
Testament, God’s people constituted a nation gathered out from among the rest of the
nations, whereas in the New Testament God’s people constituted a spiritual kingdom
dispersed among the peoples of the world. For this reason, the commands concerning war for
the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament are
different. In the Old Testament war was not only sanctioned or permitted in cases of self-
defense (e.g., Ex 17; Num 21), but was actually commanded by God.[9]
Now, we should note that several general passages do seem to suggest a just war theme.
Perhaps “time for war” (Eccles 3:8) does so. And what of the more general wisdom of
Proverbs, which urges one to “make war by wise guidance” (Prov 20:18) and states “For by
wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory” (Prov
24:6)? Perhaps Jesus has such texts in mind when he refers to a king counting the cost before
going to war (Lk 14:31-32).
Although we cannot enter into a full discussion here,[10] there are particular reasons war
was sanctioned in the Old Testament at a particular (early) stage in Israel’s history. These
commands are unique and unrepeatable, and they were repeatedly accompanied by
miraculous signs such as the exodus from Egypt or the parting of the Jordan as a clear sign
of divine validation—which even the Canaanites recognized (Josh 2:8-11; 5:1; cf. 1 Sam 4:7-
8).
1. Even divine judgment is included in God’s saving purposes, even for the Canaanites
(Ps 83:16-18), and God brings temporal judgment both to Israel and the rest of the nations—
whether directly or indirectly—with a heavy, reluctant heart; he does not delight in judgment
(Gen 6:6;Lam 3:33).
2. The enemies of Israel were God’s enemies as well (Ps 139:19-22). However, it was
not that Israel could do no wrong, since they were stubborn and rebellious (Deut 9:6).
Indeed, God warned that Israel would be vomited out of the land as well (Lev 18:28). In fact,
they were—with the northern kingdom of Israel being overtaken by the Assyrians (722 B.C.)
and Judah being ravaged by the Babylonians (587/586 B.C.).
3. War as a means of judgment against Canaanite religion and morality was a last resort
—an emergency measure—to stem the tide of spiritual and moral decay. God had waited
over four hundred years before Canaanite sin had reached its limit (Gen 15:16)—sin of infant
sacrifice, bestiality, incest, homosexuality. Simultaneous with judgment was the necessity of
creating a cultural and spiritual environment for the coming of a Redeemer—a faithful
Israelite who would fulfill the Abrahamic promise to bring blessing to all the nations (Gen
12:1-3).
4. The Canaanites’ situation posed a life-and-death struggle for Israel’s own national
identity. To capitulate to the Canaanite influence would have been tantamount to treason for
Israel—much like John Walker Lindh’s leaving America to join the Taliban to fight against
American soldiers in Afghanistan. Idolatry and immorality were very real threats to Israel’s
identity and calling to bring light to the nations. In Israel’s day, a threat against the state was
a threat against religion—and vice versa. But whether in Israel or in today’s nation-states, a
common feature is the reality of shaping a coherent or cohesive society around a common
primary loyalty: “Each demands that primary loyalty and threatens with destruction any who
prove disloyal to the disadvantage to the rest of the society.”[11]
5. The chief object of destruction was not Canaanites per se, but rather false worship
(idols, altars, shrines) as well as a repudiation of covenants and marriages with idolatrous
peoples who would spiritually and morally lead Israel astray (Deut 7:3-6).
6. The people against whom war was made had time to repent, having heard of God’s
delivering Israel from Egypt (Josh 2:10-11; cf.1 Sam 4:8). Some, such as Rahab and the
Shechemites (Josh 2;8:33-35), did so.
7. The main emphasis of God’s commands—and the first directive—was for Israel’s
enemies to be displaced—“dispossessed” or “driven out”—not wiped out (e.g., Ex 23:27-33).
Driving out the Canaanites, whose deities were tied to the land, would reveal the superiority
of Yahweh over these false gods. Driving out—like Adam and Eve were “driven out” of the
garden (Gen 3:24)—suggests displacement, not death.[12]
8. The language of “utterly destroy” or “leave alive nothing that breathes” was
typically hyperbolic or exaggerated in ancient Near Eastern war texts. Even a narrow victory
could be “utter destruction.” King Mesha of Moab claimed that “Israel is no more”—quite an
overstatement! In places where Joshua “utterly destroyed” Canaanites, we continue to see
that many Canaanites remained in the land (Judg 1–2; cf.Josh 23:7, 12). We read of “utter
destruction”—and then of many survivors! For example, the Anakites are “utterly destroyed”
(Josh 11:21-22), and then Caleb goes to fight against them in the hill country (Josh 14:12-
15). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out that the Israelite attacks on cities were merely
disabling raids—not acts of utter decimation. They would attack towns and then head back to
their base camp at Gilgal. Kitchen concludes: “These campaigns . . . were not territorial
conquests with instant Hebrew occupation. The text is very clear about this.”[13]Also, Judges
1–2, alongside abundant archaeological evidence, suggests that the Israelites gradually
infiltrated Canaan rather than depending on an overwhelming military blitzkrieg.
What of other peoples who were “utterly destroyed”? With the Midianites, Numbers
31:7 (NIV) states that after Midian’s seduction of Israel, Israel “fought against Midian . . .
and killed every man.” But this cannot be literal since in Judges 6:5 (NIV), the Midianites
are “like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count them or their camels.” With the
Amalekites, though the text says Saul had “utterly destroyed” the Amalekites, though
their king (Agag) and animals were preserved (1 Sam 15:8,20). As the story goes on, we
see plenty of Amalekites who remained. They continued to fight Israel, and over four
hundred Amalekites escaped (1 Sam 27:8-9;30:1-17). Unlike the Canaanites and
Midianites, generation after generation of Amalekites sought Israel’s destruction. They
were more like Japanese kamikazes or the Nazis.
The same “utterly destroy” language is applied to Judah: God himself said he would
“utterly destroy” Judah and make them an “everlasting ruin” through the invading
Babylonian army (Jer 25:9), but this was clearly hyperbolic, as we see at the end of the
book of Jeremiah. What we do see is that Judah’s religious, military, political, and
economic structures are disabled. Virtually every time a narration of “utter destruction”
occurs, it is followed by an account that presupposes it did not happen.
9. Joshua carried out “all that Moses commanded” (Josh 11:12,14-15, 20; etc.). But large
numbers of Canaanites still lived in the land. Thus Moses’ command in Deuteronomy 20 to
“utterly destroy” should also be understood as exaggerated or hyperbolic language.
10. Judgment for sin always comes, in some cases sooner than others. The death of all
people is part of this judgment. God uses various instruments in this judgment, and in the
Old Testament he used the nation of Israel or other nations (e.g., Is 10).
11. The New Testament—including Jesus himself—affirms the workings of “the God of
the Old Testament.” This God brought just judgment (Mt 11:21-24;24:37-39; Acts
7:11; 13:9;1 Cor 10; Heb 11:33-34). Further, Jesus continues this theme by threatening
judgment for Israel and others (Mt 18:6;21:41; Mk 12:9; Rev 2:16, 21-23). What is more,
Jesus and New Testament writers go beyond the Old Testament with their repeated emphasis
on permanent, post-mortem separation from God for those who reject him (e.g., Mt 8:12;2
Thess 1:9; Rev 14:11).
12. We do not really understand the holiness and thus the wrath of God. God hates sin,
and he judges people who defy him and exclude themselves from his presence and resist his
Spirit (Acts 7:51;2 Thess 1:9). Failure to understand God’s justice and anger at sin will mean
failure to understand the depths of God’s love in providing redemption.
13. If innocent life was lost in these “Yahweh wars,” it was because a good, wise God had
overriding reasons to bring about a greater good in this supreme emergency—as when
innocent lives would be lost if the president ordered a terrorist-hijacked plane to be shot out
of the sky.
God is called a God of war, the Lord of (military) hosts. Though theological systems may
differ on the unity of Old and New Testaments, no one can dispute that not only were certain
wars sanctioned in the Old Testament, but the “final war” of judgment against the world
system, according to Revelation, will be waged by God/Christ himself. Thus it cannot be said
on biblical authority that waging war is always immoral. The only debate is whether human-
initiated violence is ever justifiable in this church age.
War and the use of force in the New Testament. Those who hold to a position of
nonresistance often ask, what would Jesus do? Though Jesus is our supreme example, not
every activity of his becomes a mandate for his followers. His special mission was to die for
the world’s sins; to do otherwise would be capitulation to Satan. By contrast, our vocation is
distinct, even though we are to live lives “conformed to his death.” Even when we are called
on to lay down our life for others, some might be called to accept martyrdom for Christ’s
sake, and others to die valiantly defending the life of another. In any event, Jesus’ example
cannot be a rationale for nonresistance under all circumstances.
For one thing, the argument that Jesus prohibited the use of force begs the question—or
assumes the point it wants to prove—namely, that a slap on the cheek must be an act of
violence. Actually, the back-handed slap is a gross insult, as we’ll see below. Also, for those
keen on asking the “what would Jesus do?” question, we can raise this one: “Would Jesus
make a whip and drive moneychangers from the temple—and stop people from entering the
temple?” Indeed, Jesus used force in driving moneychangers from the temple and (forcibly?)
stopping merchants from entering the temple. And he likely did this twice, not just once (Mk
11:15-17; Jn 2:14-15).[14] Furthermore, in his parable of the vineyard, Jesus says that the
vineyard owner will “come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to
others” (Mk 12:9)—or to use the words of his perceptive audience, “he will bring those
wretches to a wretched end” (Mt 21:41). He threatens judgment on Bethsaida, Chorazin and
Capernaum (Mt 11:21-24), which would take place in A.D. 70. And he pronounced it on the
false prophetess “Jezebel” and on the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:16, 21-23). We see Jesus himself
coming at the end of history—John uses the imagery of a military conqueror on a white
horse (Rev 19:11)—to bring final judgment to the world. And what about others in the New
Testament who affirm the use of force in certain instances? Stephen, Paul and the author of
Hebrews affirm and commend Israel for fighting in their divinely commissioned battles (Acts
7:11; 13:9; Heb 11:33-34).
Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” does not refer to an act of violence, contrary to
what Christian pacifists typically presume. Assuming that the one striking is right-handed,
the blow would be a back-handed slap—a gross insult (cf. Lam 3:30, which refers to a
simple slap without indicating the back of the hand: “Let him give his cheek to the smiter
and be filled with insults” [RSV]). And when Jesus was slapped while on trial, he did not
“turn the other cheek” but challenged this (Jn 18:23). So we should be careful about
absolutizing the “turn the other cheek” command. This is true of the command to “give to
everyone who asks you” (e.g., we shouldn’t give when an alcoholic approaches and asks us
for money to buy beer). Even the command to forgive is not absolute ( Lk 17:3-4: “if he
repents, forgive him”). Also, when the Eleven are seeking a replacement for the treacherous
Judas, they cite two imprecatory psalms as their justification: “let his homestead be made
desolate, and let no one dwell in it” and “let another man take his office” (Ps
69:25 and 109:8 in Acts 1:20). Paul calls Elymas “you son of the devil” (Acts 13:10). John
refers to false prophets as “the children of the devil” (1 Jn 3:10). Paul is confident that
Alexander, who brought Paul much harm, will be justly repaid for it (2 Tim 4:14). Martyred
saints in Revelation cry out, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging
and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev 6:10). These saints
recognized that justice cannot be ignored, and they called on God to set matters right.
Likewise, Jesus does not always demand that we literally “turn the other cheek.” Rather,
Jesus actually prohibits returning insult for insult, commanding rather to take additional
personal insults.
What about not resisting evil? Actually, Jesus himself is constantly resisting evil. The
command is better translated “do not resist by evil means”—which is precisely how other
New Testament passages interpret Jesus’ words (Rom 12:17-21; 1 Pet 2:21-24). In Acts 23,
Paul appeals to his rights as a Roman citizen to be protected from those plotting to take his
life. So Paul gets the protection of two hundred spearmen and seventy horsemen, who will
use force if necessary—precisely what Paul was hoping they would do. This is exactly the
role government should have in bearing the “sword”—to protect the defenseless and to
punish or take “vengeance” on evildoers (Rom 13:4). No individual should take personal
“vengeance” but leave room for God’s “wrath” (Rom 12:19). A few verses later, Paul says
this should be left to the state—the “avenger” of evil to bring “wrath” on evildoers (Rom
13:4). Although some pacifists will downplay the word “sword” (machaira)—a simple short
sword—it is clearly a lethal instrument (cf. Acts 12:2; Heb 11:37; Rev 13:10). This same
word can be used of a sword of larger size—a “great sword”—like the one given to the rider
of the red horse, symbolizing death and bloodshed (Rev 6:4). Some will argue that the
“sword” in Romans 13 is what tax gatherers carried about with them—and that Paul was
admonishing believers not to rebel against Rome’s demand for taxes. However, the language
of “avenge” and “bring wrath” in Romans 13 is not the language of tax gathering—but
something more severe.
The New Testament, in addressing the issue of war and peace, does not go beyond the
principle of governmental authority, which includes the legitimate use of force. As we noted,
soldiers and centurions are treated favorably in the New Testament—indeed, one who has
more faith than any Israelite (Mt 8:10; Acts 10:1-2). Military men coming for baptism are
told to be fair in their dealings and content with their wages (Lk 3:14). They were not told,
“Go and sin no more”; yet if military service were inherently immoral, this is exactly what
we would expect. Would Christ have instructed a prostitute simply not to charge too much?
And when the disciples mention that they have “two swords”—to which Jesus replies, “It is
enough” (Lk 22:38)—the reader is left wondering, “Why were they carrying swords in the
first place?”
Furthermore, if the hermeneutical principle of the unity of Scripture is applied, Christ’s
teaching concerning personal sacrificial love fits with all the rest of biblical teaching and his
own example, while Paul’s and Peter’s teaching on human governmental authority also fits
with the rest of biblical teaching and God’s own example. The two principles are not in
conflict. So we have in the New Testament the combined affirmation of government
authority and force and the lack of condemnation of those exercising that authority with
force.
We see the qualities of love and justice in governing illustrated in the presidential career
of Abraham Lincoln. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of
Rivals documents the remarkably wise, virtuous, courageous and magnanimous character of
this president.[15] Though he used force to preserve the Union and put down rebellion, he
exhibited Christlike humility and graciousness toward his opponents, forgave and restored
enemies rather than trying to humiliate them. This spirit is expressed in his Second Inaugural
Address.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to
see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to
care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all
which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all
nations.
Lincoln’s public and personal life was marked by integrity. He grew in his Christian faith
during his presidency.[16]He very much exemplified the teachings of the Sermon on the
Mount and Jesus’ own mission statement in Luke 4. He did not initiate war, and he always
held out an olive branch to his enemies (he sought to go and first be reconciled to them). He
did not seek to crush or humiliate his opponents (he loved his enemies and prayed for them).
He did not return insult for insult in order to maintain his honor (he turned the other cheek).
He was honest in his dealings (his yes was yes and his no no). He was modest about his
accomplishments (he did not attempt to display his righteousness before others). He
recognized that he was accountable to God (he was seeking God’s kingdom first). He sought
to protect American citizens from harm and worked to free slaves (proclaiming release to the
captives).[17]
Though the data of the New Testament on the issue of the Christian’s participation in war
is not direct or abundant, the basic principles are clear: to be Godlike is to make a sacrificial,
loving response to maintain a nonvindictive, magnanimous, reconciling attitude in all
personal relationships when one’s own rights or honor are at stake; and human government is
responsible, with accountability to God, to use force when necessary to assure peace and
protection for its citizenry.
Other areas of concern. Based on this foundation, what theology of war and peace can
be inferred from other biblical principles? Consider three areas of concern: values, God’s
sovereignty and human responsibility.
Values. Here we point out certain tensions that seem to lean more toward a “just war”
position, but we realize that this issue of values is very complex.
1. War versus peace: Peace is preferable to war, ordinarily. God is on the side of peace,
ordinarily. We know this because peace will be the final state of those who have made peace
with God. So, “blessed are the peacemakers.” Always. But sometimes war may be the only
route to righteous peace and to protecting the defenseless. If a war is just and thus waged in
the will of God, it is a moral necessity—not a “necessary evil”—even if it involves death and
sorrow. We should not pit “just peacemaking” against “just war.” Sometimes they may work
in tandem. A just war may be necessary to proceed toward peacemaking (e.g., with Germany
and Japan after World War II).
2. Justice versus love: These are not at odds. True love is tough, and true justice is
tempered with mercy. Punishment can be a true expression of love, both for the persons
needing protection and, it is hoped, for the person receiving it as well. It is just and loving to
protect your wife or daughter or even a stranger on the street from being raped or kidnapped.
Protecting the defenseless has strong biblical warrant.
Of course, Christians are not to use force to extend Christ’s kingdom (Jn 18:36); that is
not the church’s task. As we have seen, the Christian ethic of love is not opposed to that
of justice; love and justice will at times require force to stop crime, punish evildoers and
keep order—say, through the local police force. Or, on a larger scale, force may
be necessary to stop aggression and tyranny—as when the Allied troops attempted to stop
the spread of Nazism. In both scenarios, the goal is to restore peace. These are good
deeds Christians can engage in.
3. Force versus violence: While all violence is force, not all force is violence. Proper
force is motivated by both justice and love of neighbor; it is aimed at restoring peace; it is
carried out by a proper authority. Violence is not inspired by justice and love but by greed
and hatred; it is not aimed at restoring peace but at destruction and evoking terror; it is not
carried out by a proper authority. The issue is not violence versus no violence, but a
legitimate use of force versus an illegitimate one.[18]
4. Physical versus spiritual: A human life is not of “infinite worth,” even though
humans are made in God’s image. Furthermore, continued physical life is not the supreme
value. It is better to lose one’s life in faithfulness to Christ and in commitment to the well-
being of others.
5. Earthly versus post-mortem life: A plaque we (the Copans) have in our home
expresses this: “Only one life, / ’Twill soon be past. / Only what’s done for Christ / Will
last.” We are all going to die. Our lives are but a vapor—whether cut short by illness or even
lived out to the weakness of old age. This is nothing compared to everlasting life.
6. Church versus state: Church and state both divinely ordained and have value—though
never ultimate. Our ultimate “pledge of allegiance” is not to a country or church, but to
Christ (Phil 1:21). On the other hand, the church is a family that extends across national
boundaries, and as citizens of heaven, we have stronger ties with Christians of other lands
than with non-Christians in their transient citizenship here on earth.
7. Human rights and freedom versus order: Rights and freedom are valuable, but none
are of absolute value. (Anarchy is freedom gone mad.) The government has a responsibility
to preserve order, but not to tyrannize. (Tyranny is order gone mad.) Our rights are limited as
we coexist with others. To overthrow order for the sake of rights and freedoms may be too
high a price to pay.
God’s sovereignty. Though human beings are responsible for their behavior, individual
and corporate, God in his sovereign wisdom will bring his purposes to a successful
conclusion—whether through human instrumentality, just or unjust, or through divine
intervention (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11). His purposes will not be thwarted (Ps 2). Justice and
righteousness will triumph at last, and in this confidence his people can rest, whether
oppressed or free.
Human responsibility for war. Even though God is sovereign and can bring good and
direct history through the choices of human beings, humankind may not lay the blame for
war on God or Satan, for humans are responsible for war, one of the most grievous results of
their sinfulness. Because of this sinful, selfish disposition, conflict is inevitable, and for this
sinful behavior humans are accountable to God.
A second aspect of human responsibility is that humans have been chosen as instruments
both of God’s judgment and grace. God has chosen civil governments as the primary agents
of his judgment and preserving order, and the church as the primary agent of his grace. If he
waited for perfectly good and wise people to mediate his purposes on earth, his purposes
would go unaccomplished. So human government—whether family or state or employer—is
hobbled by its own finitude and fallenness. Nevertheless, it is God’s own instrument.
We should add that a nation or group of nations may engage in a truly just war, but the
fact that missteps may be made does not undermine the overall justice of the war. Even if
certain powers veer off course—out-of-control soldiers who engage in rape or kill
noncombatants, or a misguided plan that causes more destruction than necessary—this does
not negate the overall justice of the cause. The fact that missteps or moral violations may be
made, say, on the part of the Allies in their attempt to stop the Nazis and the Japanese does
not put the Allies and Axis powers on equal moral footing or negate the justice of the cause.
Now, some might suggest that what some call a just war may not have been a truly last
resort; after all, maybe one or two further attempts could have averted war. We can talk about
giving principled diplomacy a strong or reasonable chance. But we should also consider the
track records of thugs and tyrants who have had a history of breaking one promise after
another. Well-grounded trust is one thing; gullibility or misguided optimism is another.
Torture and Human Dignity
In the post-9/11 world of countering terrorism, the media have focused attention on
whether certain methods such as “waterboarding”—repeatedly pouring water over the face of
the immobilized suspect—or other “enhanced interrogation techniques” constitute torture.
Christian ethicist David Gushee spearheaded the drafting of the 2007 Evangelical
Declaration Against Torture (EDAT). But fellow evangelical Keith Pavlischek of the Ethics
and Public Policy Center in Washington criticized the document because it nowhere actually
defined torture. While Christians would likely agree that torture is inherently evil, not all are
agreed on the methods that are used. For example, does inflicting pain or frightening or
deceiving a terrorist constitute torture? If so, Pavlischek argues, then so do spanking,
handcuffing and riot control. On the other hand, certain practices such as electric shock,
bodily mutilation or sodomizing a prisoner would be wrong. No one should “do evil that
good may come”; one should not justify certain immoral measures simply in the hope that a
prisoner may divulge valuable information. But does shouting at or scaring a prisoner
constitute torture?[19] Sometimes what one person considers torture—say, threatening a self-
acknowledged terrorist in the quest for further information—may be nothing of the sort. The
term torture is sometimes used in like manner as “cruel and unusual”—a slippery and often
highly subjective judgment. Some plausibly argue that torture is immoral because it
involves permanent physical and psychological harm rather than temporary harm or threat;
this, it seems, is the appropriate dividing line to bring greater ethical clarity to the issue.
Furthermore, the EDAT document is methodologically problematic: one can ask the
questions related to interrogation (“torture”) as a Christian pacifist, or one can ask them as a
Christian just-war proponent, but the document does not serve as a “teaching document”
for both sides. For example, the document’s reference to “the right not to have one’s life
taken unjustly” is something pacifists would dispute; however, just war advocates would
dispute a position that left out the word “unjustly.” That said, Gushee and Pavlischek both
agree that torture is wrong and that there are strict conditions or specified limits beyond
which interrogators should not go. Gushee acknowledges too that there is “some flexibility in
applying pressure to encourage prisoners to reveal information that could save lives.”[20]
Nuclear war.Conventional versus nuclear. Is nuclear warfare qualitatively different from
conventional warfare or only different in scale? In an article significantly titled, “The ‘End’
of Just War Theory,” Donald Heinz states unequivocally not only that nuclear warfare is
qualitatively different, but also that a consensus is developing toward what has been called
“nuclear pacifism.” Given the far greater scale of destruction, he asserts: “Thinking
Christians will need to come to terms with the powerful consensus in Protestant and Roman
Catholic ethics that all or nearly all nuclear war is impossible on just war grounds.”[21]
Civilian population. Some say nuclear war is qualitatively different because civilian
populations are the object of warfare. Others counter that strategic warheads can be used
against military objectives alone. But the issue is fuzzy on two counts. First, though just war
theory in the Middle Ages developed the idea of the protection of civilian populations,
historically, this has often been difficult to achieve. In some cases, soldiers may embed
themselves in civilian areas, making strict military fighting difficult if not impossible.
Second, there may be cases of supreme emergency that require stronger measures to
bring war to an end. Franklin Roosevelt spoke against the Japanese when they bombed
Nanking in 1937: “This Government holds the view that any general bombing of an
extensive area wherein there resides a large populace engaged in peaceful pursuits is
unwarranted and contrary to the principles of law and humanity.” But a few years later
America under Franklin Roosevelt engaged in obliteration bombing in both Germany and
Japan. The purpose was to break the will of a people to fight, and in this the approach was
successful—a tragic necessity. A Japanese pastor once told me (Robertson) the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved multitudes—perhaps millions—who would have died in the
struggle of conventional war. This is borne out by the work of World War II Marine and
historian E. B. Sledge, who with remarkable accuracy documented his encounters with the
ruthless, cruel Japanese forces during the harrowing ten weeks of fighting at Peleliu and
Okinawa (September to November 1944). Even after the bombs were dropped on Japan
(August 6, 1945) and its subsequent surrender, Sledge said, “We thought the Japanese would
never surrender. Many refused to believe it.”[22] Whatever one thinks of this much-debated
war-ending act, there do appear to be some atrocities so brutal and threats so grave that it
would be wrong not to act with appropriate force to protect the innocent and to restore order
when it is in one’s power to do so (see Prov 24:11-12).
Third, protection of the civilian population may be difficult to defend logically. Perhaps,
as Reinhold Niebuhr suggests, the concept of protecting the civilian population arose more
from knightly chivalry than from carefully reasoned ethical distinctions. It is difficult to see
how a soldier drafted to serve his country in the army is any more or any less “innocent” than
his brother left to work on the farm, producing grain to feed the army. The whole nation
participates—either all adults are guilty or none except those in power. One thing is certain,
if any nation publicly committed itself to refrain from touching civilian population centers,
the enemy could have instant immunity for military preparation by making sure that military
installations were embedded within civilian populations. However, though the idea of
protecting “innocent” civilians may be difficult to defend logically, impossible to perfectly
follow, and rarely implemented, most ethicists and ethically sensitive civilized people recoil
from the idea of deliberately attacking civilians.
End result. There is one element in nuclear warfare that does seem distinctly different.
Just war theory holds that war is legitimate only if the end result in view is of greater value
than the potential loss in securing that end. In an all-out nuclear exchange, what would be
left of any possible value compared to the total loss of people and property? Even so, some
hold that the freedom from oppression gained by the survivors would be worthwhile and that
even the prospect of losing everything should not deter a people from defending justice or
liberty, even if it means national self-sacrifice. Though the ethics of the distinction between
conventional and nuclear war may be debated, that there can be a qualitative difference in
outcome seems clear.
Options for response. Since 1945, we no longer have the option of living in a nuclear-free
world. But we can and must work toward peace with justice in a nuclear age. The
disintegration of the former Soviet Empire changed the equation but does not diffuse the
issue, particularly when rogue nations or Islamic terrorists set their sights on acquiring
nuclear arms. To ignore or dismiss such possibilities miscalculates the sinfulness of human
beings and the harm some of them are willing to do their enemies. Some rogue, malicious
nations will simply refuse to negotiate—or will be utterly untrustworthy in keeping their
word. Again, think back to Munich in 1938, when Hitler “played” the British—making still
more promises he never intended to keep.
Ultimately, our hope is in God—not in the assurance of immunity from war or in the
strength of armies or potent weapons. In the translation of Martin Luther’s words, “The body
they may kill. / God’s truth abideth still. / His kingdom is forever.” We will die. The time and
manner of death are all that is in question. And that is true for all of us.
Nuclear war presents us with a horrible dilemma and horrific consequences. Nuclear
warfare should not be accepted as a normal way for settling international differences; all
ethically sensitive people should work toward the ideal of, first, control; then, limitation;
next, reduction; and finally, elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet simple unilateral reduction
by certain well-intentioned nations will only further embolden tyrants to do their worst.
Further Reading
Charles, J. Daryl. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005.
Clouse, Robert, ed. War: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
Evans, Jeremy, Heath Thomas and Paul Copan, eds. Holy War in the Bible:
Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2013.
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 2012.
Hanson, Victor Davis. The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. New
York: Bloomsbury, 2010.
Leithart, Peter J. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of
Christendom. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.
Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. New York: Basic Books, 2012.
25Crime and Punishment
A crime is some activity or negligence that a human authority has decided should be
punished, usually because it is deemed injurious to others. Crime and sin are not
synonymous. Sin is Godward, and not all sin is criminal (lust or pride). And not all crime is
sinful (publicly proclaiming Christ in certain societies).
Crime and its punishment are determined by a society, presumably for the welfare of its
members and hopefully based on objective moral principles. Since crime is against others, it
normally violates the biblical law of love and often harms another person. Thus, broadly
speaking, it fits under the sixth commandment. The punishment of crime is certainly a life
issue—depriving criminals of part or all of their lives as free citizens. But controversy rages
as to the cause of crime, the nature of crime, the purpose of punishment, and the kind of
punishment a just and merciful society may employ. On these issues the Bible sheds
significant light.
Philosophical Issues
The cause of crime.Until the end of the nineteenth century, crime in the West was
generally considered the outworking of a sinful disposition. And even where moral
implications were disallowed, crime was universally considered an act for which the
criminals themselves were responsible. That began to change in the last century with other
proposed explanations—physiological, psychological, sociological. Through Freud’s
influence, mentally sick persons are not responsible for their behavior. The end result of the
general acceptance of this approach was to distinguish between criminals who were normal
and thus responsible for their crime and those who were abnormal and needed treatment, not
punishment. A legal definition of insanity, determined by the Supreme Court in the
M’Naghten Rule (1843), was gradually refined until most courts in the United States came to
rely on the American Law Institute Rule, which states that “a person is not responsible for
criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he
lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his
conduct to the requirements of the law.”[1]
With the advent of sociology, the line of reason initiated earlier by psychology has been
taken much further. Not just the mentally ill, but all people are products of their environment
—a point behaviorist B. F. Skinner drove home in his Walden Two. So the person who
commits a crime is not guilty, but the society (environment) that produced such a person.
Famed psychiatrist Karl Menninger’s book The Crime of Punishment argues that the crimes
committed against criminals are greater than the crimes they commit.[2] Today, many
psychologists challenge the very concept of mental illness.
Who is to judge which person is abnormal or “ill”? We’ve all been shaped by our culture,
and each person’s behavior is normal to that person. Thus cultural relativism leads inexorably
to radical personal autonomy and the rejection of all behavioral norms—a downward spiral
that still continues. This viewpoint increasingly prevails in one form or another and has
profound effects on a society’s view of crime and punishment. Scripture teaches that
environment has a very powerful influence on a person. Criminals have been strongly
influenced by their environments, and, hopefully, a change of environment might assist them
toward making better choices. But determining what elements in a person’s environment
were most influential and trying to create an environment that will help a person change for
the better seem very elusive.
Does poverty produce criminal behavior? This is doubtful. For example, criminal activity
in America did not rise during the Great Depression. The late James Q. Wilson documented
how for decades before 1960, the population grew by the millions, the murder rate steadily
fell, and poverty was declining. However, after this time, America’s legal system and idea-
shapers began to focus on “root causes” of crime to figure out why criminals did what they
did. In addition, the government and legal system increased the number of prisoners’
“rights,” gave lighter sentences, and delayed the execution of convicted death-row criminals.
From 1961 to 1974, the murder rate would more than double, and employment of non-whites
increased. Poverty was certainly not the problem.[3]
Blaming society means abdicating personal responsibility for the direction of one’s life.
And this refusal to own up to one’s wrongdoing shuts the door to the possibility of salvation
by God’s grace. The Bible is much more realistic (see part three, “Sin”). It both recognizes
the influence of environment (“the world”) and thus the responsibility of people to create as
good an environment as possible for others as well as for themselves. It also recognizes the
role of responsible choice. Our path to the proper solution for crime means each person
taking responsibility for his own actions. Crime’s root is sin, and the final responsibility for
crime rests with the sinner. Lack of discipline or love in the home, failure of justice in
society, evil companions and poor education all may contribute, but in the final analysis, we
sin because we are sinners and choose to sin—and thus contribute to the deterioration of our
character.
Though some blame the courts and the process of criminal justice for the increase in
crime, others blame the educational system, the violence and sex of television, narcotics,
racial discrimination, and unemployment. We believe the breakdown of the family is the
leading negative environmental influence. Public education and the media share major
responsibility in eroding virtue and moral duty.
Since environment is a major influence in the formation of human personality and
character, we must work to make it as just and merciful as humanly possible. At the same
time, we must insist that each person is responsible for her own moral destiny and is held
accountable for any conduct that is injurious to others.
Nature of crime. While God punishes sin, humans punish crime. Since humans are not
authorized to punish sin, society must wisely determine which sins are criminal and therefore
punishable. While it is a neutral matter that the British drive on the left rather than right side
of the road, a good deal of law has to do with morality. And by making a matter law, it
becomes a moral issue.
What about “private” morality? Most people would agree that private sins should not be
punished in law courts. But what is “private sin”? Ultimately, no sin is truly private, since
every sin has an adverse effect on others in the life of the sinner. Consider how men who
view pornography in private are adversely affected in their (objectified) view of women and
intimacy in marriage. Drinking may be private, but so many homicides and traffic fatalities
in the United States are alcohol related.
To say “you can’t legislate morality” is false. We are grateful that the government
criminalizes rape, murder and child abuse. But governments should be careful not to over-
legislate either. It seems that all that can be done by law is to hold a person accountable for
unwarranted injury to another’s property or person or for behavior that might jeopardize
another. Because of this legitimate distinction between sin and crime, a strong movement has
emerged toward decriminalizing “victimless” crimes—crimes in which there is no
complainant. These include drug use, drunkenness, gambling, vagrancy, prostitution and
pornography. Of course, if all these were decriminalized, a large portion of the current law
enforcement overload would be eliminated.
Any behavior that a society believes is directly or potentially injurious to others may be
legitimately outlawed. Of course, a society is responsible to enact only laws that it intends to
enforce and can enforce. Any behavior, private or public, victimless or not, which a society
declares criminal and then does not enforce undermines the rule of law, promoting a lawless
society.
So the crucial element in lawmaking is not whether an act is private or whether there is a
direct victim who complains, but whether that society judges the behavior to be potentially or
actually injurious to others and whether society has the will to enforce the legislation.
Purpose of Punishment
Rehabilitation. Whether in the judgment of Israel in the Old Testament or the discipline
of church members in the New, God’s primary purpose in punishment has always been the
restoration of the sinner. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God,
and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezek 18:23RSV; cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 1
Tim 1:19-20). So the position of humanitarian criminologists that rehabilitation is the
purpose of punishment has strong biblical precedent. But contemporary theory makes
rehabilitation virtually the only valid reason for punishment, and most Western governments
have abandoned such efforts. Moreover, apart from regeneration, the only factor known to
improve the behavior of criminals is age—moving to mature adulthood, during which time
criminal activity lessens.[4]
Deterrence. A second biblical reason for punishment is to deter others from doing wrong.
“As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand
in fear” (1 Tim 5:20RSV). Both Testaments indicate that punishment can serve as a warning
to other potential lawbreakers (Deut 17:12-13; Acts 5:1-11; Rom 13:1-7). Despite the claim
that rehabilitation alone (and not deterrence) is the purpose of punishment, it seems
manifestly clear that punishment—particularly prompt, consistent punishment—does deter.
Consider police-strike situations when there is little or no enforcement of criminal law;
criminal activity rises sharply.[5]
The penologist Ernest van den Haag emphasizes the deterrent and quarantine value of
imprisonment as over against elusive rehabilitation. He suggests more severe sentences for
second-time offenders committing serious crimes. He advocates not releasing violent, serial
criminals before age forty, since few people commit violent crimes after age thirty-five.[6]
An additional benefit of incarceration is that letting dangerous criminals loose is more
costly to society than incarcerating them. For example, in 2008 Britain’s total cost of the
prison system per year was found to be 1.9 billion pounds sterling; in contrast, the financial
cost alone of crimes committed per year by criminals was approximately 60 billion pounds
sterling.[7]
Though there is no consensus as to what actually deters a person from criminal behavior,
there is something of a consensus that the certainty and swiftness of apprehension and
punishment do deter. But if sure and swift punishment is the greatest deterrent, our present
system can hardly be expected to deter.
Protection of the innocent. A third legitimate purpose of two forms of punishment—
imprisonment and execution—is to protect others from criminals. Western society seems to
increasingly emphasize the quarantine purpose of imprisonment. While over 95 percent of
present American inmates will be returned to society, around two-thirds of them will commit
further crime.
Scripture is filled with admonitions to protect the innocent and helpless—the widow, the
fatherless, the alien, the weak. Government is established so that citizens may lead a “quiet
and peaceable life” (1 Tim 2:2 RSV). Therefore, any just society must create structures to
protect its citizens—something our society is not doing well at present. Prison sentences are
short, early parole the rule, and subsequent crime all but certain.
Restitution is one form of protecting the rights of crime victims and the state which has
gained some attention, thanks to the work of Prison Fellowship (PF), founded by the late
Charles Colson. This ministry recognizes the vital role of restitution—a concept found in the
Mosaic law (e.g., Ex 22:12; Lev 6:2-5; Num 5:7): criminals pay back the victims(and the
government) for damages done; they should also give back to the community through
various work projects for the benefit of society at large. Merely “warehousing” prisoners is
inadequate. Restitution, however, affirms the criminal’s dignity and moral responsibility
without minimizing the proper place of punishment. Yet we should make room for restorative
justice. Of course, Prison Fellowship recognizes the transforming role of the gospel:
prisoners making a commitment to Christ and growing in their faith while in prison are far
less likely to return to crime and end up back in prison.[8]
Punitive. Retribution is the one purpose almost universally disallowed by many inside
and outside the church; it is considered “uncivilized” because of its apparent vindictiveness.
Yet justice means giving to a person his due—giving what is deserved. So we cannot neglect
the place of just desert—a vindication of justice in proportion to the crime committed. Yet,
though this is not the sole reason given in Scripture, the New Testament clearly identifies the
vindication of justice as one basic purpose of criminal punishment. Government officials are
established to mete out vengeance on evildoers (Rom 13:4: “to execute his wrath on the
wrongdoer” [RSV]; 1 Pet 2:14: “to punish those who do wrong” [RSV]). In the Old
Testament, an “eye for an eye” (lex talionis) demanded proportionality: the punishment must
fit the crime. Retribution, then, is not revenge, which springs from personal animosity or
hostility.
Once we have abandoned the criterion of desert,C. S. Lewis said, “all punishments have
to be justified, if at all, on other grounds that have nothing to do with desert.”[9] Moreover,
“when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him
or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of
a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case.’”[10] Therapy or
rehabilitation should not be a substitute for justice: “How can you pardon a man for having a
gumboil or a club foot?”[11] Furthermore, granting pardon or mercy implies guilt and desert:
“Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful Mercy will flower only when it grows
in the crannies of the rock of Justice.”[12]
All four purposes of punishment for crime are biblically valid and should be emphasized
in law and criminal justice. The biblical order of priority in emphasis is probably (1)
rehabilitation, (2) justice, (3) protection of the innocent and (4) deterrence.
Varieties of Punishment
Good law versus bad law. In general good law reinforces moral standards, and bad law
weakens moral standards. There are many ways to create bad law or systems of justice.
Unenforceable law (or laws that society does not choose to enforce, such as America’s
Prohibition) is bad because nonenforcement undermines respect for the law and promotes
corruption among the citizenry and law enforcement officials.
Unjust law comes in many forms. It is unjust to accept hearsay evidence or to convict
without adequate evidence. It is unjust to subject a victim of sexual assault or child abuse to
repeated emotional and mental assault, shame, and intimidation in the courtroom. One
pervasive form of injustice in our present system is that the poor and those without friends in
high places do not have adequate legal representation as the wealthy who know how to work
the system. What of a law requiring a prison sentence for shoplifting fifty dollars’ worth of
merchandise while there is no law to keep the owner of the chain store from unjustly
depriving the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax.
Inappropriate or unequal punishment is another kind of bad law. For instance, while
ordinary criminals may receive harsh penalties, media or music celebrities often get their
wrists slapped. But such disproportionate penalties regularly extend beyond this
demographic. In October 1964 in Sicily, Gaetano Furnari killed a college professor who had
seduced his daughter; in Manila a Chinese businessman was apprehended for kissing his
Filipino secretary five years earlier. The murderer and the kisser were both given four years
in prison. At about the same time, I (Robertson) read in a Tokyo newspaper the story of some
young men who got drunk, captured a swan from the imperial palace moat, roasted the swan,
and were given four years in prison. Buried in an inside column of the same paper was the
brief report of a young mother who deliberately drowned her infant in a cesspool; she was
given a two-year sentence, suspended. Good law and good law enforcement must be
equitable and appropriate to the crime. In protecting the innocent, good law does not make an
unwarranted infringement on the rights and freedoms of others. This delicate balance is
difficult but is the object of good law.
Nonpunishment. Is it always wrong for society not to punish a crime? Apparently not,
since crimes went unpunished in the annals of Scripture. Although God severely judged the
household of the wife-stealing, murderous king David, David himself was not punished
according to the Mosaic law—although death came to his family as a result (2 Sam 12:10).
In Hosea, Gomer the harlot is not executed—although she would serve as an illustration of
rebellious Israel in the face of divine, wooing love. Paul was a persecutor of the church but
would become an apostle of Christ. This does not mean that crime should be overlooked or
that criminal justice should be subverted; Scripture is abundantly clear on that. But it does
mean that mercy and forgiveness may sometimes be legitimate without violating justice, but
mercy can only make sense in the context of justice.
Alternatives to imprisonment. The American system of imprisonment is the primary
sanction against crime, whereas in Scripture it was not mandated for that purpose. The prison
system has utterly failed in three of the four purposes of punishment. It only functions well
as a just form of punishment; retributive justice is served—although, insofar as criminals are
behind bars, they will not be a danger to the public (protection of the innocent). And despite
rampant violence, corruption, drugs and homosexual activity in our prisons, we see no
serious attempts at prison reform. Are there any viable alternatives?
Deprivation of privilege is a common form of punishment, whether relatively light (loss
of a driver’s license or right to vote) or severe (losing one’s license to practice medicine or
law). Perhaps there are other creative ways to match the crime with appropriate deprivation
of something of value other than freedom to live in normal society.
Corporal punishment is unlikely to be acceptable any time soon in Western society.
Banishment, or exile, formerly common, also has fallen out of favor except in the deportation
of criminal aliens. It would seem less cruel than the typical prison environment, but that
would depend largely on the place of exile. Military service is used in some societies as a
form of punishment. None of these could be ruled out on biblical grounds, but none is likely
to be acceptable in America today.
There is one present form of punishment that could be greatly expanded—the monetary
fine or expropriation of property. The convicted criminal could be required to pay a
stipulated amount to the victim and to the government (for costs of apprehension and
prosecution) in monthly installments if necessary. This could be restricted to the 75 percent
of the prison population who are not guilty of violent crimes. Supervising such a program
would be a fraction of the cost of incarceration, and the victim would have some hope of
restitution for the loss suffered. A by-product would be to keep first offenders from the prison
“schoolhouse in crime” and the brutalizing effect of prison.
Other alternatives would be a community service assignment or an assignment to serve or
care for the victim in some way. These might be especially appropriate for juvenile
offenders, many of whom are guilty of truancy, incorrigibility and other offenses that would
not be punishable as an adult criminal. These juveniles crowd the system and are society’s
greatest loss. Surely a society with creativity sufficient to put a person on the moon need not
settle for a failed system of punishment here on earth.
Capital Punishment
There are two prevailing views on what Scripture teaches about executing convicted
capital offenders: those who advocate abolition of capital punishment and those who
advocate capital punishment for premeditated homicide.
Abolition of capital punishment. Britain abolished the death penalty in December 1969,
and a number of other nations have followed. In the United States, only seventeen states and
the District of Columbia outlaw capital punishment. The Old Testament permits capital
punishment for certain crimes. Scholarly debate whether all sixteen or so crimes would have
been capitally punished, apart from, say, murder or idolatry. Instead, monetary payment
would have been utilized. Passages advancing the death penalty for sabbath-breaking or
rebelling against parents were likely viewed as maximum penalties to present a tone of
severity, even though judges would typically have opted for lesser penalties (cf. Ex 21:30).
[13] For example, the “indecency” (Deut 24:1-4) as grounds for divorce includes adultery, but
in this case, the death penalty is not mandated.
Now, no biblical scholar assumes that contemporary societies should put to death an
idolater. The Mosaic law was not intended to be universally applied. Further, biblical
advocates of abolition hold that the teaching of Christ deliberately set aside capital
punishment. Did not Jesus set aside the Old Testament’s lex talionis (Ex 21:23-25), the eye-
for-an-eye demand for equivalent retribution (Mt 5:38-42)? He emphasizes that divorce—not
death—for adultery is morally permissible (Mt 5:31-32; 19:9). For sexual immorality in
Corinth, Paul mentions excommunication as the penalty (1 Cor 5).
Doesn’t the New Testament’s law of love rule out capital punishment? How can one love
the one he is executing? Isn’t this the very opposite of being pro-life?
Death penalty for premeditated homicide. Though some advocates of capital punishment
hold that the death penalty should be applied in cases of rape and treason, most who write on
the subject speak primarily of murder as the one capital offense. Some advocate that capital
punishment should be reserved for the most heinous kinds of murder—say, mass murder or
genocidal acts such as in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. Various scholars will point to a
more universalizing text like Genesis 9:6 to legitimize capital punishment: “Whoever sheds
the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (RSV).
Others will suggest that this is a proverb—much like Jesus’ statement that those who take
up the sword will perish by the sword (Mt 26:52); that is, violence and bloodshed lead to
more of the same. However, Genesis text continues: “for in the image of God has God made
man.” The text more likely indicates something more than proverbial—namely, to the
legitimacy of capital punishment as an adequate retribution for violating the divine image.
Though the structure of the Hebrew could either be a statement of fact or a command,
biblical scholars generally hold that a command was intended.
Advocates hold that the New Testament also is clear. Jesus seems to assume capital
punishment (cf. Mt 15:4). And as we noted, Paul’s instruction on civil authority (Rom 13:4)
speaks of the sword not merely as a symbol of authority or even imprisonment—the use of
“avenger” and “wrath” would not fit here—but as a symbol of the specific authority to
execute.
Can executing a criminal be done in love? It seems so—as with the same reluctant love
that God shows in letting sinners go their way and separate themselves from God. Certainly,
those with the heavy responsibility to take a human life should do so in light of strong
evidence—and with reluctance and sorrow rather than pleasure. And criminals on death row
have an uncommon opportunity to know in advance the time of their death and to repent and
prepare to meet their Maker.
Does capital punishment deter more than other punishment? The question is hotly
debated. The criminal underworld certainly thinks it deters and so applies the principle
ruthlessly. The deterrent value, if any, is greatly reduced because few expect to meet such a
fate. Even when capital punishment was in full force in the United States, fewer than 1
percent of murderers were executed. Furthermore, the majority of murders are crimes of
passion—family members or close acquaintances. Of course, those who forfeit their lives
will not kill again; obviously, this would deter them from committing any future crimes.
To some degree, the threat of capital punishment can have a sobering effect on would-be
perpetrators (Deut 17:12-13; cf. Acts 5:11). Yet deterrent value is the least important
consideration when it comes to biblical reasons for punishment.
Conclusion. Our personal conclusion is a mediating one. Capital punishment cannot be
inherently immoral because God mandates this for universal application (Gen 9:6). On the
other hand, God himself did not insist on it, either for the first murderer, Cain, or for the most
prominent, David. Therefore, it cannot be wrong to show mercy, although mercy cannot be
properly understood without first grasping justice and desert. In the light of this biblical
tension, it seems to us that the death penalty should be viewed more as a prerogative of
human government than as a mandate.
Therefore, for capital punishment to be properly appropriated, it should not be carried out
when gross social injustices have not been eliminated. By “injustices,” we mean, for
example, the former pattern in America in which 50 percent of those executed between 1930
and 1967 were black. Black killing of a white brought almost certain death, white killing of a
black almost never. Furthermore, executions were reserved primarily for the poor and
ignorant who could not afford adequate representation or did not understand how to seek
assistance. Often they were mentally retarded, almost always poorly educated.
Another form of injustice, mistaken execution of the innocent, has been overemphasized.
The most liberal estimates of all varieties of crime in which innocent persons have been
convicted is up to 5 percent. In capital cases, where no expense is spared and no avenue of
defense is unprobed, such error is highly unlikely, but in the rare instance when it may occur,
one is faced with the alternative of what the lack of this sanction may do in a society. As
much as the naturalistic humanitarian might protest, extension of physical life is not the
ultimate value. Further, lifelong imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty is itself a
serious deprivation and loss. Also, simply because governments have divine authority to
capitally execute (Rom 13:4), the expectation is that they will be pursuing justice rather than
violating it. For example, Pilate did wrong in allowing Jesus to be killed (Jn 18:38; Acts
3:13-17); Stephen was unjustly stoned (Acts 7). Indeed, there are times when God must be
obeyed over against human authorities (Acts 5:29).
Some complain that capital punishment unfairly discriminates against, say, blacks and
minorities or the poor. As we noted earlier, we should distinguish between punishment and
actual crimes committed. Sadly, 94 percent of black murders are committed by other blacks,
who are responsible for 50 percent of all homicides in America, though they represent 13
percent of the population. The charge of unfair discrimination deals with the law’s
unjust application— not with capital punishment itself. In general, we don’t abolish laws
simply because they are unequally applied. For example, a police officer may, for whatever
reason, be inconsistent in stopping only some speeding drivers or stopping speeding drivers
at some times but not at others.
In summary, if capital punishment is part of a reasonably just system and is used only in
cases of premeditated murder with no mitigating factors and certain evidence, it would
probably enhance the value of life and the fabric of justice in a society. But if it is invoked
capriciously or in unjust ways, it would be better to set aside this God-given prerogative of
human government.
Christian Responsibility for Criminal Justice
What can the individual Christian and the church do toward promoting a just and
merciful society, other than by being just and merciful and teaching God’s standards?
Rehabilitation. Although this is considered by many to be the primary purpose of
punishment, there is a growing consensus that our present system works directly opposite.
And here the church and individual Christians must do all within their power to promote the
one thing that can rehabilitate—regeneration. To persuade individuals to take responsibility
for their own failures is the first step. But more is needed—to know of God’s forgiving grace,
to become a new creation, to have a caring family of God, especially after their release. This
is the kind of work that Prison Fellowship does, and its volunteers participate in friendship,
mentoring, Bible study, care for prisoners’ families. Its late founder, Charles Colson, was the
former chief counsel under Richard Nixon. He was convicted and imprisoned for his
involvement in the Watergate break-in, but became a believer in Christ. Perhaps Colson has
helped to show us the way to obey Christ’s injunction to visit those in prison ( Mt
25:36, 39, 43-45). It is dreadful to note what Christ promised those who fail to visit
prisoners. Christians actually hold the only proven key to transforming criminals and making
them good citizens—of earth and heaven!
Punishment. If we insist that retributive justice must be restored as a primary purpose in
criminal punishment, we must work hard toward a more just system of criminal justice. As
citizens in a democracy we cannot sit by and shout “law and order”—or “lock them up and
throw away the key.” We must listen carefully to prisoners and prison staff, scrutinize the
system and, where necessary, insist on improved laws and their enforcement.
While prisons partially fulfill the retributive purpose of punishment, our system does not, in
that most crime goes unpunished. We must work toward the justice of consistent
apprehension as well as justice in sentencing and punishment.
Protection of the innocent. Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to take the risk of
personal involvement in reporting crime. The Christian must act in love for the innocent by
stopping crime through direct action, at least by reporting all crime or suspicious activity. It
may prove costly, but that is what love is all about. This action is the loving response toward
the criminal as well. Criminals need to be protected from accumulating ever greater guilt and
to have opportunity for enforced reflection on their wicked ways and their certain end.
More stringent pretrial qualifications of bail/bond release, longer prison terms and less
parole may protect society in about 25 percent of the cases. But upwards of 75 percent of
convicted criminals could be punished in alternative ways at no risk of violence. We may
need to redirect some of our very limited resources in criminal justice.
Deterrence. Deterrence depends, we are told, not on the severity of the threatened
punishment so much as on the certainty and swiftness of apprehension and punishment.
Solomon agreed (Eccles 8:11). Private citizens can assist in making apprehension more swift
and certain by reporting crime or suspicious activity, but they can also contribute through
advocating legal and fiscal reform. For example, more tax revenues could be allotted to
criminal justice efforts, such as the development of alternative systems of punishment. This
would not only reduce the overcrowded condition of prisons (which contributes to their
failure), but would also make room for the enormous backlog of pending cases, which, as
much as anything else, works toward long delays in prosecution and a tendency toward a
light sentence and early release.
But the greatest contribution the Christian and the church can make toward deterrence is
to faithfully teach God’s holy standards and God’s holy judgment.
Further Reading
Lewis, C. S. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” in God in the Dock. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970.
Van Ness, Daniel, and Charles Colson. Crime and Its Victims: What We Can Do. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Wilson, James Q ., and Richard J. Herrnstein. Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1985. PART IXIntegrity
You shall not steal.
Property and Truth
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Apart from eternal life, integrity may be the most precious possession I have, its violation
my greatest loss. Can I be trusted? If not, all of my other characteristics become uncertain,
jeopardizing all other values and undermining all relationships. Even communication
ultimately depends on the confidence that what the other person says is reliable, what she
does is trustworthy. No wonder Satan is called the father of lies, the ultimate cheat. And God
is the trustworthy one. Although integrity touches every aspect of Christian behavior, the
eighth and ninth commandments focus our attention on two aspects: property and truth. In
this part, we look at labor and management, work and leisure, economic systems, poverty
and theft, and finally, truth and deception.
26Labor And Management, Work and Leisure
Private Property and Taxation
The prohibition of stealing (Ex 20:15) recognizes the right of private property. In the Old
Testament, the land of Israel—indeed, the whole earth—belonged to the Lord, yet the land
was entrusted to Israel’s families (Lev 19:9: “your land”). Even the post-Pentecost Jerusalem
church was not “communist” in that believers had “everything in common” (Acts 4:32); this
was a voluntary act, and the rest of Scripture does not indicate that such a pattern is
normative. As Peter told the cheating Ananias about his property, “While it remained unsold,
did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts
5:4 RSV). Further, Paul condemns freeloading: people should work with their own hands; if
they don’t, they shouldn’t eat (2 Thess 3:10, 12; see Paul’s example in Acts 20:34; 1 Thess
2:9; 2 Thess 3:8).
While Karl Marx regarded private property as oppressive and stated that it should be
abolished, it would be wrong to say that taxation violates the eighth commandment. While
taking private property for granted, Scripture indicates that government taxation has its
place. This was seen throughout the Old Testament, and both Christ and the apostles affirmed
it in the New. Christ was accused of teaching against paying taxes (Lk 23:2), but when he
himself was asked, he affirmed the right of the government to tax and the obligation of
Christ’s disciple to pay it (Mt 22:17, 21; Mk 12:14, 17; Lk 20:22, 25). Paul affirmed this
obligation (Rom 13:7). However, there is one caveat: taxation in our day may be used for
unjust or immoral causes—tax-funded abortion, welfare programs that perpetuate
dependence and reward indolence—and where possible, dissenting citizens should seek to
change such misuses.
Further, how one helps the poor also matters. This should not be measured in mere dollar
amounts, whether here or abroad. Consider how trillions—yes, trillions—of foreign “aid”
dollars have been given to impoverished nations to help their poor and hungry citizens, only
to have this money go into the pockets of bureaucrats and dictators for lavish homes and
lifestyles as well as for building up their military machine.
Labor and Management
Although the social context of Bible times was radically different from contemporary
democratic society, the principles enunciated for slave-owner relationships are so
humanitarian in their protection of the oppressed that they are easily transferable to labor-
management relationships in the post-slavery era in which we live, an era brought about
through the influence of New Testament teaching. For example, in his letters to the churches
at Ephesus (Eph 6:5-9) and Colossae (Col 3:22–4:1), Paul gives principles for both employer
and employee.
Responsibilities of labor and management. Both labor and management are to work for
God. Work is to be treated as service to God/Christ because God instituted work as a good
gift—evidenced by God’s work at creation and beyond (e.g., Jn 5:17)—and it is central to
our human vocation (Gen 1:27-28). Further, there is both reward and punishment from God
himself. Payday someday, yes, but benefits and losses now as well, from the master of both.
In Christ, there is no slave or free (Gal 3:28). Human worth is not measured by what one
produces or by the abundance of what one has (Lk 12:15). Work may be carried
out without the pursuit of monetary or material gain, as when the returned exiles set to
“work” to repair Jerusalem’s broken walls (Neh 4:6, 15). And we could speak of work after
retirement, even if one is not employed.
Employees are to work “from the heart,” humble in attitude, fearful before God of
wronging their employer. Employers are to be humbly fearful of wronging their employees.
Furthermore, both are to relate honestly with one another, without hypocrisy. They are not to
appear one way in the presence of the other and behind their back behave in a contrary way.
Straightforward, open and courteous discussion must take place in the context of mutual trust
—not only standing by public agreements but intentionally working for the welfare of the
other.
The atmosphere and attitude at work is to be cordial and even cheerful—a challenge
when colleagues do not behave in a Christlike manner. But it is nevertheless the standard
required by the master whom both serve. Paul says that this means the worker will work
diligently and faithfully. And he says of the owner, “in like manner.”
Responsibilities of management. Managers must not threaten. They have power over the
welfare and livelihood of their employees—which affects the employees’ families;
employers must not use their power to coerce. When an employer demands something
unethical or illegal from an employee, such as offering a bribe to a prospective customer or
demanding sexual favors, the sins of cheating and immorality are compounded by the use of
economic coercion.
Furthermore, all working arrangements, including pay, must be just. Unsafe working
conditions in a coal mine or chemical plant are certainly unjust. What about minimum wage?
This can be a contentious issue, but increasing the minimum wage, ironically and sadly, leads
to an increase in unemployment, as it prevents companies from hiring more workers. Why
hire four less-skilled workers for twelve dollars per hour with work benefits when just one
skilled worker can be hired for fifty dollars per hour to complete same tasks? One 1990
survey of economists revealed 80 percent agreement with the statement that increasing the
minimum wage increases unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. Without
minimum wage restrictions, restaurants, say, are more likely to hire people for entry-level
positions; this gives them important job experience, the opportunity to create a track record
of good work habits, helps them build a résumé, and enables them to step into a better
opportunity a year or two later. Such entry-level jobs help get people onto the employment
ladder.[1]
Furthermore, justice in the workplace—giving to each person what is due—includes
equal or fair treatment and stands in opposition to favoritism. “What good is nepotism if you
can’t keep it in the family?” the joke goes. Yet justice does not permit an employer to give
one person greater or less benefit for unfair reasons—solely on the basis of family,
friendship, race or sex. While workers are worthy of their wages, this does not mean padding
pockets through pay raises while the company and its workers suffer as a result.
In addition to Paul’s letters, Old Testament teaching concerning the owner’s
responsibilities throws light on the responsibilities of management. God opposes taking
advantage of the vulnerable. Though God permits servitude, he opposes the practice of
chattel slavery (Deut 24:14; Jer 34:8-20; Ezek 27:13; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Rev 18:11-13). The
Mosaic law regulated abuses in order to protect the destitute so that they would not sell
themselves into servitude, as we note below. Servants were not to be harmed, their time in
servitude was limited, and they were to be given material goods to start their debt-free life
(Deut 15:10-17). Not all these laws are applicable for our day, of course, but principles
embedded in the regulations should prove instructive.
Most of the admonitions were for the master or employer, and this is certainly appropriate
for any relationship in which one party is strong, the other weak. Management must not
defraud, oppress or harm, and must pay fair wages on time (Lev 19:13; 25:43; Deut 24:14-
15; Prov 22:16; Mal 3:5; Mt 10:10; Lk 10:7; Rom 4:4; 1 Tim 5:18; Jas 5:4). The established
rest day must be given (Ex 20:9-11; 23:12; 34:21; Deut 5:14; 15:18). Management must not
despise the cause of the employee (Job 31:13), but should reward and pay him well (Prov
17:2; 27:18; Jer 22:13). In fact, the master was to treat his servant as a son (Prov 29:21).
Responsibilities of labor. Employees, for their part, are not to deceive or be violent (Zeph
1:9; Lk 16:10-11). They are to honor their employers (Mal 1:6; 1 Tim 6:1), be faithful (Mt
24:45-47; Lk 12:35-39; 16:10; 1 Cor 4:2; Tit 2:9-10), and be patient and follow orders (Eph
6:5; Col 3:22; Tit 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), even when the employer doesn’t deserve it (1 Pet 2:18-
20). They are to work hard and not be lazy (1 Thess 4:11-12; 2 Thess 3:7).
Let us speak plainly about the implications of this teaching. The employer who pays less
than a fair wage is stealing from the worker. The worker who carelessly arrives late and
wastes time with small talk, inattentive work, long breaks, or daydreaming is a thief. And
both sin against God, their true employer.
Collective bargaining. What happens when management—often with significant
economic power—fails to live up to its responsibilities? Labor has the recourse of protection
by a higher authority (government), collective bargaining, and, where relevant, the
correctives of the supply-and-demand market.
Although God is the ultimate authority, who will one day settle all accounts, governments
typically represent the highest temporal power at present. That said, large corporations, in
addition to providing employment, could potentially wield power to dramatically affect the
economic life of a nation. Yet under enlightened—often democratic—governments, the
laborer is normally protected by safety standards, improving working conditions,
nondiscrimination and basic rights before the law (e.g., property, legal recourse).
Often the natural correctives of the free market, through competition and wealth creation,
can bring about positive changes for the worker and in the workplace. Even while Karl Marx
was using outdated information about working conditions in British factories, much self-
correcting and many worker reforms were already taking place without the help of a
centralized government.[2] But should unions of teachers, sanitation workers, police or
firefighters, who are supported at taxpayer expense, have the right to strike for higher wages
and benefits when “management” cannot be counted on for “fairness and justice in humility,
from the heart”? And does a Christian have the right to strike?
Some Christians oppose such unions since this is an “unequal yoke” with unbelievers ( 2
Cor 6:14–7:1). To some degree, being united with unbelievers is inevitable in a fallen world
(Jn 17:15-18; 1 Cor 5:10), and being unequally yoked has to do with spiritual defilement, not
with contracting or associating with unbelievers in ordinary this-worldly matters.
The benefits of some union workers—say, auto workers—should not be funded by
taxpayer dollars, as this is simply bad business practice. Such businesses should be sustained
because they are able to fairly compete in the free market, which helps keep companies
innovative and attentive to the interests of customers; otherwise, businesses stagnate and die.
When it comes to sanitation workers and firefighters, for instance, resisting established
corporate injustice may be justified, though not with force, as employers’ lives rarely face
harm on the job. The threat of a strike to force negotiation may be justified in the face of
unredressed grievances. On the other hand, unions should not coerce workers who are
content with their wages and benefits. “Big labor” can often become as corrupt as the “big
management” under criticism. Of course, the freedom to assemble (“unions”) is a right, and
such groups can freely petition the government to make reforms.
However, collective bargaining is different; it is a privilege—namely, the granting of one
interest group special status and access to the decision-making process, as the 1969 Atkins v.
City of Charlotte case concluded. On the other hand, should people be forced into unions? Is
it not their right to refuse? Must union members be forced to pay dues—typically taken out
of their paychecks—when those monies are channeled toward causes with which they
fundamentally disagree, such as supporting one political candidate over another? Today, a
union’s power is not so much in its ability to strike, which was a signal failure in 1981, when
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fired striking air traffic controllers and hired new
ones. Rather, their energies had been directed toward preserving their jobs and preventing
replacement workers from being hired.
Historically speaking, unions in America had their place to improve conditions and
challenge corruption, but once labor achieved power, it too proved corrupt. As unions
typically operate in today’s world, there seems little justification for unionization.
Scripture demands justice and fairness from management, and the law of love would
press a manager or owner toward providing fair wages and, where possible, basic benefits—
while making the business succeed for the sake of both the employees and owners. Profits
for stockholders or management must be in line with benefits for employees. Labor, in like
manner, may demand justice and fairness but should not coerce other benefits, especially
when they might jeopardize the company’s—or government’s—welfare.
Excursus: Slavery in Scripture
In a book on biblical ethics, we should address the commonly raised question about the
Bible’s alleged endorsement of slavery.
1. Critics commonly associate all mention of slavery in Israel with more recent modern
abuses, particularly antebellum slavery in the American South. This is inaccurate. Servitude
in Israel was more like contracted indentured servitude, common in colonial America, for
instance: British citizens would work for seven years to pay for their passage to the New
World, after which they could move about freely as citizens.
2. Israelite servitude came about through extreme poverty—not through kidnapping, a
capital offense (Ex 21:16; cf. Deut 24:7).
The Hebrew term for servant or slave (‘ebed) is a neutral word that denotes a dependency
relationship rather than degradation, property ownership or oppression. It can often function
as an honorific title. For example, after their deaths both Moses and Joshua are called “the
servant [’ebed] of the LORD” (Deut 34:5;Josh 1:1; 24:29). The book of Exodus portrays the
Israelites as moving from dependency on Pharaoh to a position of dependency on God as his
“servants” in the wilderness. God demands that Pharaoh let the Israelites go; they are called
Pharaoh’s “servants/slaves” in Exodus 5:15-16—just as the Egyptians themselves are called
Pharaoh’s “servants/slaves” in 5:21! So Israel is going from one state of servitude or
dependence to another (Ex 4:23;7:16; 8:1,20; 9:1,13; 10:3,7, 8, 11,24, 26). They are leaving
oppressive servitude in Egypt to serve God in the wilderness.[3]
3. Israelite servitude was entered into voluntarily and temporarily. One “sells himself”
(Lev 25:47) or parcels out family members to clan homes (Ex 21:7) to live and be cared for
under their roof. Of course, a kinsman could buy out or “redeem” a person from debt, or the
debt would be eradicated and land would revert to the original owner in the fiftieth Jubilee
year.[4]
4. Lifelong servitude was not permitted, unless voluntarily entered into (Ex 21:5). The
status of Israelite servants was unique in the ancient Near East: “Hebrew has no vocabulary
of slavery, only of servanthood.”[5]
5. Israel had laws to mitigate poverty—and thus servitude—and controls to prevent
institutionalizing it; these included gleaning laws, six-year service limits, the year of Jubilee,
warnings to look out for “the stranger, the orphan, and the widow who are in your midst”
(Deut 16:11), no-interest loans (Ex 22:25), commands to lend freely to the poor (Deut 15:7-
8) and so on.
6. Servants in Israel were to be treated as persons, not property, which is in keeping with
the image of God in all people (Gen 1:27; cf.Job 31:13-15). As the Anchor Bible
Dictionary puts it, “We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as
human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.”[6]
7. Unlike the antebellum South, injured servants were to be released (Ex 21:26-27). If a
“master” killed his servant, then he could be executed (Ex 21:20). The servant was to be
treated as a human being, not as property. Now if the servant died a day or two later, this
suggests he had no murderous intent. Here, the context is one of accidental injury and paying
the medical bills for another’s recovery (Ex 21:18-19); the employer’s paying a medical
“fee” (“that is his fee/silver”) for his servant’s injuries suggests a spirit of good will (Ex
21:20-21).
8. In contrast to the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, foreign runaway slaves were not
to be returned to their harsh masters (on pain of death) but were to settle safely within
Israel’s cities (Deut 23:15-16).
9. If a male and female servant marry—and even have children—while under the six-
year contract, they must complete it (Ex 23:2-6). The male or female servant—Mosaic case
law was not gender specific—who completed his contract could leave. However, as in the
army, marriage does not cancel a contract. The husband, say, could leave so that he can earn
his own way without family, or he could try to buy out his family while sustaining himself.
But given these alternatives, it would often make better sense to permanently attach himself
to his live-in employer and be with his family: “perhaps many people would be
reasonably happy to settle for being long-term or lifelong servants. Servants do count as part
of the family ....... one can even imagine people who started off as debt servants volunteering
to become permanent servants because they love their master and his household (cp. Deut
15:16-17).”[7]
10. Leviticus 25 seems to allow a person to
acquire [qānāh] male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. . . .
Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners [tôšābîm] who live as aliens [gērîm] among
you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they
will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even
bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as
permanent slaves. (Lev 25:44-46)
How does this fit in with what we’ve already seen? A few responses are in order:
•
Earlier in Leviticus, Israel was commanded to love the stranger (gēr) in the
land just as one loved the native (Lev 19:33-34). Such passages set a tone for some of the
more difficult-to-interpret texts.
•
The Israelites were to remember that they too had been strangers (gērîm) in the
land of Egypt (Ex 22:21;23:9; etc.), and Israel’s laws sought to protect from abuse not only
Israelites in servitude but also strangers in the land (Ex 21:20-21, 26-27; Deut 23:15-16).
•
The verb “acquire” (qānāh) does not necessitate treatment as property (think
of sports team “owners” who “sell” players): Eve had “gotten” a child (Gen 4:1); God is
“possessor” of the universe (Gen 14:19); Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10) in a
legal transaction.
•
Earlier in Leviticus 25, we see an interesting repetition of the couplet
“stranger” (gēr) and “sojourner” (tôšāb). Israelites themselves are
“sojourners and aliens with [God]” (Lev 25:23); Israel is to sustain a poor countryman “like
a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you” (Lev 25:35); and it was possible that
“the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient” (Lev 25:47).
The text indicates that the land of Israel was a place of opportunity for outsiders so that they
could even hire Israelites, though it was to be avoided. Further, we are told that Israelites
“may” acquire “slaves”—not that they “must.” But in light of Leviticus 25’s context and in
consideration of other relevant passages, why couldn’t the conditions for acquiring foreign
“slaves” be identical to acquiring Israelite servants—namely, extreme poverty and
voluntarily attaching themselves to an Israelite household? And again, couldn’t the
conditions for a stranger staying permanently in an Israelite home (and into the next
generation) be identical to an Israelite’s doing so? Indeed, the word permanent(ly) (‘ôlām) is
identical in Exodus 21:6 (the Hebrew servant) and Leviticus 25:46 (the foreign “slave”). In
both cases they could leave the state of servitude and become persons of means. Walter
Kaiser says that, in principle, all persons in servitude within Israel could be released, unless
they had committed a crime.[8]
•
In Israel’s history, foreign servants could become elevated and apparently fully
equal to Israelite citizens. For instance, Caleb’s descendant Sheshan ended up giving his
Egyptian servant Jarha to his daughter in marriage, and they had a child, Attai (1 Chron 2:34-
35).
•
Israel was required to give oppressed foreign runaway slaves protection within
her borders (Deut 23:15-16). Surely, this text is no basis for lesser treatment (Ex 21:16; Deut
24:7). Also, non-Israelites weren’t to acquire land in Israel; so this meant landless foreigners
didn’t have much choice but to attach themselves to Israelite households as servants.
11. As for the New Testament, we have Roman chattel (property) slavery, not Mosaic
servitude with dignity and rights. Some commonly assert: “Jesus never condemned slavery.”
But consider Jesus’ very own mission statement. Jesus’ mission opposed all oppression,
including treating slaves as property; after all, he came to release captives and free the
oppressed (Lk 4:18). In the epistles Paul said there is “neither slave nor free” in Christ (Gal
3:28), and he encouraged slaves to find their freedom if possible (1 Cor 7:21). In addition,
masters and slaves in Paul’s congregations were exhorted to “greet one another with a holy
kiss” (1 Cor 16:20;2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26). Paul also gives this exhortation in Romans
16:16, whose context mentions Andronicus and Urbanus—believing Romans with typical
slave names who also shared in the gospel work of Paul as fellow-workers and fellow--
prisoners in the gospel (Rom 16:7,9). This “holy kiss” in the family of God was a radical
picture of equality; that is, the believer’s class or status—whether slave or free—did not
undermine her fundamental position as a brother or sister in Christ. Furthermore, believing
masters and slaves who lived in the same household would share the Lord’s Supper together
—a radical statement of equality. This would be the beginning of the undoing of Roman
slavery, which actually occurred as the result of the Christian faith spreading throughout
Europe.
Paul condemns “slave traders” (1 Tim 1:9-10), and John condemns “Babylon” (ancient
Rome; cf.1 Pet 5:13) for her trafficking in humans as cargo (“bodies and souls of humans”—
or “bodies, that is, the souls of humans”); the Romans traded them as they did spices, oil and
cattle (Rev 18:11-13; cf. Ezek. 27:13, where ancient Tyre had done the same).
12. What of Onesimus? Wasn’t he a runaway slave whom Paul sent back to his master?
Wasn’t Paul sending the wrong message about slavery by doing this? As it turns out, the
“fugitive-slave hypothesis” actually had quite a late start, dating back to the church father
John Chrysostom (A.D. 347–407). Furthermore, the epistle contains no “flight” verbs, as
though Onesimus had suddenly gone AWOL on Philemon. And Paul revealed no hint of fear
that Philemon would brutally treat a returning Onesimus, as Roman masters typically did
when their runaway slaves were caught.
It has been plausibly suggested that Onesimus and Philemon were estranged Christian
brothers—perhaps even biological brothers.[9]Paul exhorted Philemon not to receive
Onesimus as a slave, whose status in Roman society meant alienation and dishonor; rather,
Onesimus was to be welcomed as a beloved brother: “that you might have him back forever
—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but
even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord” (Philem 1:15-16 NIV).
Notice, too, the similar-sounding language in Galatians 4:7: “Therefore you are no longer a
slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.” This may shed further light on how
to interpret the epistle of Philemon: Paul wanted to help heal the rift so that Onesimus (not an
actual slave) would be received back as a beloved brother in the Lord—not even simply as a
biological brother. To do so would be to follow God’s own example in receiving us
as sons and daughters rather than slaves.
Work and Leisure
We have considered the topic of sloth in chapter eight. Here we look at work—and
overwork—as well as accountability for the use of leisure time.
Work. To the Greek mind, labor was undignified—or worse. According to the biblical
authors, work is part of our calling as humans—to rule over creation (Gen 1:26, 28; 2:15;
cf. Ps 8). About gospel ministry, Paul said, “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9).
Human work is to be a sacred cooperation with the living Creator. As the hymn writer put it,
“We plow the fields, and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is fed and watered by God’s
almighty hand.”
From a biblical point of view, work has three purposes—related to God, others and self.
John Stott defined it this way: “Work is the expenditure of energy (manual or mental or both)
in the service of others, which brings fulfillment to the worker, benefit to the community, and
glory to God.”[10]Our work matters to God—and even the most mundane activities can honor
God (1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:23). God has given us abilities, opportunities and inclinations by
which we can glorify him, offering up our work as a spiritual sacrifice to him (cf. Rom 12:1-
2). Our work should also help others, say, in making safe and truly useful products rather
than dangerous or frivolous ones—and so that we can have goods to help those in need ( Eph
4:28). And laborers themselves can often find satisfaction in working hard, using their
abilities and seeing the fruit of their labors. Work is a privilege, which contributes to a proper
sense of self-respect. Of course, job satisfaction is secondary to living a faithful, Christlike
life in the workplace and to supplying for the material needs of oneself and one’s family.[11]
God gifted the craftsman Bezalel with artistic skills to work on the tabernacle (Ex 31:1-
6; 35:30-35). Jesus told soldiers and tax-gatherers not to leave their work, but to work
honestly and with integrity (Lk 3:12-14). For the Christian, there is no “secular” work; it is
all sacred. We have a calling to do our work with industriousness and excellence. God the
Father himself expressed that he was “well-pleased” with his son Jesus, who had been a
wood craftsman even before he began his public ministry (Mt 3:17). In the movie Chariots
of Fire, Eric Liddell, called to be a missionary to China, was also an exceptional runner who
had been training for the 1924 Olympics. He told his sister, “I believe God made me for a
purpose—for China. But he also made me fast, and when I run, I feel his pleasure.”
However, what one does to earn a living—the task of shining shoes at an airport or of a
Dalit’s sweeping human excrement in Calcutta’s streets—should not be confused with one’s
divine calling, as though these tasks are somehow what God designed a person to do. And
even Paul’s making of tents to sustain himself at times was not his calling; Christ had called
him to the more fundamental task of evangelizing the Gentiles. Ultimately, one’s purpose and
calling are to fellowship with God and become more like Christ, and this can be achieved
through our work, even if our work is not as fulfilling as we would like it to be.
It is every believer’s calling or vocation to live a Christlike life in the workplace. We
need to recover the word vocation in our day. Indeed, the
terms occupation and profession remove the element of God’s approval and blessing of work
—that work is a sacred gift that is bound up with our priestly calling. The prayer of Psalm
90:17 is fitting: “May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our
hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands” (NIV).
The “Protestant work ethic.” German social historian Max Weber’s major work, The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism draws particular attention to Calvin’s
understanding of predestination. He argues that the “spirit of capitalism”—though it existed
before this time—came to full flowering with the emphasis on demonstrating that one was
part of the elect by doing “good works.” This included hard work and self-discipline, which
issue forth in the accumulation of wealth, which is morally permissible so long as it does not
result in a life of luxury and idleness. Part of the human calling—a strong emphasis of the
Reformers—is to work and find fulfillment in that work.
The so-called Protestant work ethic has come under criticism. Is this truly “Protestant”?
Didn’t Augustine’s work influence this thinking? Whatever the source, northern Europeans
and American Protestants have tended to hold to a serious work ethic. So influential has the
connection between Protestantism and a strong work ethic been that noted British historian
Niall Ferguson calls this work ethic one of the six “killer apps” that propelled the West
forward as a civilization—along with civilizational competition, science, modern medicine,
property rights and a free market. Though an atheist, Ferguson claims that the decline in
religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming the “idlers of the world”—and that
China’s increasingly strong work ethic has been shaped by Protestantism in the West.[12]
Although we address the question of play and leisure below, some feel guilty when they
relax. Now, the growing widespread affluence in the world has made leisure increasingly
possible. In the early 1900s in America, the average worker put in a sixty-six-hour week;
today such people are designated “workaholics.” If such an approach to work is denigrated as
“workaholism,” perhaps Jesus himself is the most guilty (Mk 3:20-21) along with Paul (1
Thess 2:8; 2 Thess 3:8). As we see it, to work intensely, to work long hours, to enjoy one’s
work, cannot, on biblical grounds, be wrong, so long as one is not neglecting other
obligations or failing to attend to one’s health.
Labor should not harm the worker, whether physically, morally, psychologically or
spiritually. Certain lines of much-needed work—police officers, psychiatrists, air traffic
controllers, soldiers, for instance—require recovery time from high-stress situations. That
said, research has consistently demonstrated that the amount of work is less the culprit in
work-related health problems than one’s attitude about that work. Yet to work compulsively
or with a savior complex, as though the universe revolves around my work, is idolatrous. To
neglect other responsibilities or to work from a spirit of pride or avarice is sinful and calls for
repentance. And, we should add, regardless of the economic or political system under which
they work, Christians can fulfill their vocation so long as it brings glory to God and benefits
others.
Leisure and Play
God is a God of joy and pleasure, and leisure is a gift to be rightly used. The Bible is full
of feasts and celebrations to enjoy (Neh 8:14-18; Lev 23; Esther 9:17, 19). Jesus attended the
wedding feast of Cana (Jn 2), and he was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard—
something of a “party animal”—as he enjoyed table fellowship with sinners. In the final
restoration of God’s people, “the city streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there”
(Zech 8:5 NIV).
Ah, leisure time! As more are rising out of poverty in this world, more are coming to
enjoy what was once granted only to the privileged few in our world. Yet leisure is not
morally innocent; like work, it should be engaged in to the glory of God. Leisure is a trust to
be invested in nurture of family, service to the church, ministry to the needs of others, and
replenishing one’s own physical, psychic and spiritual resources.
However, play with no end in view is unbiblical; it should be to God’s glory, and it
should be intentional rather than mindless. Think about how many squander their time on
video games, surfing the internet, or watching endless hours of television. Television or
video games are not wrong in themselves, but these can be instruments of sloth if we are not
attentive. The average child ages eight to eighteen sits for 7.5 hours in front of an
entertainment screen each day (videos, TV, movies, video games, Internet entertainment).
Just as we can idolize work, we can also idolize pleasure—and become spiritually,
relationally and psychologically harmed as a result.[13]
Further Reading
Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Understanding the Old Testament God. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2011. Chapters 12–14.
Guinness, Os. The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Reed, Esther. Good Work: Christian Ethics in the Workplace. Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2010.
27Economic Systems, Poverty, Wealth and Theft
Economic Systems
Though there have been various economic systems throughout history, two have vied for
dominance in recent history up to the present: capitalism and socialism. Because any
economic system is intertwined with some political system (e.g., capitalism in repressive
“communist” China or socialism in democratic Sweden), the two are easily confused. But for
our present consideration of integrity in using money, it is important to separate the two,
dealing with the economic rather than the political system. The question of political systems
will be considered in part ten, “Christians and Society.”
Capitalism versus socialism. Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in
and ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth is made and
maintained by private individuals or corporations. The central emphasis of capitalism is
wealth creation. Socialism involves state control over the means of production. Advocates of
capitalism seem to dominate American evangelical thought; advocates of socialism dominate
evangelical thought in most of the rest of the world, but increasingly in the United States
(e.g., Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo).
One advocate of socialism writes that capitalism “promotes individualism, competition,
and profit-making with little or no regard for social costs. It puts profits and private gain
before social services and human needs. As such, it is an unjust system which should be
replaced.”[1] Orlando Costas, who before his death in 1988 was dean of Andover Newton
Theological School, embraced socialism wholeheartedly, contending that to stand by the
poor is to support socialism:
The Spirit will lead us to recognize Christ in the poor and the really oppressed, because
Christ stands alongside of them. . . . Once you stand by them, I see no other option but
socialism. These people are where they are because of . . . a “civilized” process which has
excelled in domination, controlling people, exploiting their resources, and using their cheap
labor. Capitalism is not something that can be transformed and reformed. The very root of
capitalism is the process of enslaving people, exploiting their resources. . . . The only
alternative I know to capitalism is to reverse the whole thing and begin a proper distribution
of the wealth.[2]
George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, sees things somewhat differently. He notes
that government social programs “that are allegedly charitable are in fact profoundly
destructive Capitalism is the economic system that is consonant with Christianity.”[3]
What do we say to these fervently held and mutually exclusive viewpoints? Here we
authors have a different take on this question.
McQuilkin’s view. Perhaps the brilliant French philosopher Jacques Ellul comes closest
to the truth in pronouncing a pox on both their houses:
Capitalism has progressively subordinated all of life—individual and collective—to money.
Money has become the criterion for judging man and his activity. One by one the state, the
legal system, art, and the churches have submitted to the power of money. . . . We must
recognize the truth in Karl Marx’s observation that money, in the capitalist system, leads to
alienation.[4]
Does socialism, then, look more attractive? Socialism rightly attacks capitalism for
subordinating man to money, for its unjust economic structures. Socialism takes for its motto
“To each according to his deeds,” which in communism becomes “To each according to his
needs.”
But how does socialism plan to achieve its goals? First, by strictly limiting human life to
work, to economic activity. . . . This is precisely the source of real alienation—not
the subservience of being to personal having, but the subservience of being to doing and
to collective having The differences between systems look small next to such similarity.
[5]
Ellul’s view is that Scripture doesn’t furnish us with criteria for accepting one view over
another; we will have to appeal to something else.
I concur with Ellul that the data of Scripture cannot be bent to validate any known
economic system. On the other hand, the principles of Scripture can and must be constantly
applied by thoughtful Christians to correct the wrongs of the system under which they live.
Actually this may have happened in the middle years of the century in which almost all
capitalistic nations yielded to the pressure of human need and legislated social welfare. At
the same time almost all socialistic regimes yielded to the pressures of human nature to make
room for some private enterprise and marketplace economics.
The advocate of a free market economic system emphasizes freedom and the right to
private property, while those who promote a controlled market economy for the welfare of all
citizens emphasize justice, fairness and equality. Capitalism is for freedom; socialism is for
equality. Yet neither economic freedom nor equality is very pronounced in Scripture.
True, “freedom” is important in Scripture, but the freedom advocated, especially in the
New Testament, is primarily spiritual and only minimally political. Economic freedom to
make unlimited amounts of money is not presented in Scripture at all; the
only economic freedom addressed is freedom from poverty and oppression. Legislation can
make citizens free to accumulate, but freedom to do so does not make it happen. “Economic
freedom” can mean freedom to get (capitalism) or freedom to subsist (socialism). Since
freedom to get always works to the advantage of the smart, ruthless or economically
powerful, it is only proper that the biblical emphasis should be on protecting the weak and
less fortunate.
Whose freedom is more violated—a wealthy person prohibited from becoming more
wealthy (or compelled to become less wealthy) or a poor person who is trapped in poverty?
Who is in greater bondage—the one who has and is prohibited from getting more, or the one
who has not and is prohibited by circumstances from getting at all? On which kind of
freedom does the Bible lay emphasis?
Since Scripture is strong on setting free those oppressed economically, the crucial
question becomes whether the right of private property in Scripture is the right to unlimited
accumulation and possession. The law of Jubilee (Lev 25) clearly presents strict limitations
to permanent accumulation on the part of the strong at the expense of the weak or
unfortunate. The concept of taxation also clearly sets limits. So it would seem impossible, on
biblical grounds, to make the right of private property an unlimited right.
Though it is difficult to prove from Scripture that civil government must guarantee the
right to accumulate unlimited wealth, it is replete with strong teaching on the obligation of a
society to protect the oppressed, provide for the poor, clothe the naked ( Ps 82:3-4; Is 58:6-
10; Amos 2:6-7; Mt 25:41-43).
The Bible has a great deal more to say to the capitalist about how his behavior must be
modified than it does to the socialist. But since an economic system cannot be imposed
without political sanctions, and since human beings are radically self-oriented, thus
subverting any economic system, I conclude that neither system has a biblical mandate for
imposition. Either will founder on the shoals of human nature.
Therefore, the Christian in either system should work toward change to bring it
increasingly into conformity with the great biblical principles of justice and mercy. If
freedom can be combined with these far more basic concepts, all the better. Perhaps, in a
fallen society, the freedom won through the painful balancing of the rights of one group
against those of another is the only hope for some measure of justice.
Copan’s view. The United Nations’ “State of the Future” (2007) begins: “People around
the world are becoming healthier, wealthier, better educated, more peaceful, and increasingly
connected, and they are living longer.” Why are people generally wealthier? Which system
better helps the poor come out of poverty? Two centuries’ worth of economic data are in, and
the results are worth noting. The only cases where the world’s masses have escaped grinding
poverty—most accurately measured by increased income per person—is through the twin
conditions of free markets and the enforcement of the rule of law (e.g., property rights and
equality before the law).[6] Just go to the Gapminder website (gapminder.org) to see these
trends in any nation from 1800 to the present.
History reveals something else: socialist-style government redistribution of wealth at
home and abroad has failed to help, and has even harmed, the poor—in addition to bloating
the government. In 1979, black economist Walter Williams wrote that the government’s 250
billion dollars spent that year on helping “the poor” was simply wasteful and mismanaged—
not to mention that it created a dependent underclass. If simply distributed directly and
equally to the “poor,” each person would have received an astonishing annual payment of
$34,000. Most welfare money never reaches the recipients since bureaucratic agencies
siphon off first.[7]
In 1996, Democratic president Bill Clinton—with the majority-Republican Congress—
passed the welfare reform legislation. After ten years of very positive results, he wrote about
it in the New York Times:
In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5
million today [in 2006]. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of
mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the
Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to
employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients.
Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and
Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.[8]
And the trillions of Western-aid dollars to non-Western governments during the twentieth
century did nothing to alleviate poverty, but only created dependency and fed corruption.
Economist Thomas Sowell writes: “The lot of the poor improves through the ability to create
wealth. If we compare the track record of socialism and capitalism, the latter wins hands-
down in terms of improving the lot of the poor.”[9] I readily recognize that the motive of
helping the poor is laudable, but how we help the poor is crucial: it can harm or help.
After years of advocating for “aid” to Africa, U2 singer Bono discovered that
entrepreneurship, free enterprise and wealth creation—not “aid”—are what bring people out
of poverty. He told a Georgetown University audience in November 2012: “But commerce is
real. That’s what you’re about here. It’s real. Aid is just a stop gap. Commerce,
entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid; of course, we know
that.”[10]
The “growing disparity” between rich and poor is beside the point. Actually both rich and
poor are getting richer. In free markets, all benefit, even if Bill Gates has far more material
assets than I do—and Gates is responsible before God to use his money wisely. No one
denies that government should provide safety nets—but not hammocks!—for the truly needy.
But before government welfare, churches and Christian volunteer organizations did a much
better job of helping the poor and connecting them to family support; they should step
forward to do what they can rather than leaving this to the government.[11] Yet the
government does not create wealth; indeed, government intervention can ruin the economy,
which it did during the Great Depression. Unemployment had even dropped after the stock
market crash of 1929 (from 9 to 6.3 percent). But with the government-imposed Smoot-
Hawley tariffs taking effect, it jumped six months later to double digits and then didn’t
dropped below 20 percent for thirty-five months.[12] Rather than government intervention,
government policies should allow for equal opportunities for wealth creation.
Some might ask, isn’t the free market driven by greed? Well, there are certainly free
market capitalists who are greedy—just as there are many people who eat food who are
gluttons! Just as food should be distinguished from gluttony, the free market should be
distinguished from greed. Also, critics fail to differentiate between selfishness (which is bad)
and self-interest (which can be quite appropriate). A “greed-is-good” capitalism (selfishness)
is clearly opposed to a biblical ethic, but a principled self-interest is not. Caring for oneself
and one’s family expresses proper self-interest (Eph 5:29; 1 Tim 5:8). A baker sells bread to
support his family from the profits, yet he provides goods so his customers can feed
themselves and their families. Both parties are appropriately self-interested. This exchange
of goods creates a win-win situation—not a win-lose or lose-lose situation. Free enterprise
and profit through wealth creation are not themselves the problem. “Concerned socialism”
versus “greedy capitalism” is a false dichotomy that typically ignores or scorns legitimate
self-interest. And aren’t there plenty of socialist-minded people who are greedy
for political power?
Even the year of Jubilee (Lev 25) is not a case of wealth redistribution; it functions more
like our bankruptcy laws do, enabling a person to begin again after catastrophic loss. It
upholds preserving “private property” (though the land ultimately belongs to God), and it
does not apply to aliens and sojourners living in Israel.
Socialism and capitalism are not equal when it comes to helping the poor: despite fallen
human nature, the simple fact is that the free market has helped bring people out of poverty
whereas socialism has not.
McQuilkin and Copan. Economic systems aside, we both agree that the church has an
obligation to the poor in ways that do not keep them dependent on others but that all able-
bodied persons can work with their hands so that they can share with those who do not ( Eph
4:28). The gospel calls us to trust in our heavenly Father rather than finding security in
earthly treasures; to invest in kingdom priorities that will not pass away; to care for the needy
especially within the Christian community, but also for those outside; to reject greed,
opulence, indulgence; to care for natural resources and preserve them for future generations.
Moreover, the power of the gospel can bring transformation and redemptive uplift and
transformed attitudes toward money. Economic systems do not redeem.
Moreover, greed has different manifestations, including both economic greed and
political greed; amoral capitalists can be greedy for money while amoral socialists can be
greedy for political power.[13] The Gospels indicate that there are more dangers associated
with wealth than with poverty. Indeed, abject poverty is a condition in which people will
more likely see their need for God—even though we ought to be concerned about helping the
poor.
The selfish orientation toward consumerism and accumulation—tearing down old barns
to build new ones for the sake of self-indulgence (Lk 12:16-21)—is idolatrous, alienating
and soul-destroying. For the free market to work properly, it must be undergirded by crucial
moral commitments: hard work, trust, industry, honesty, equality before the law and equal
opportunity to improve one’s lot.
Interest. Though profit through trade is more basic to capitalism, Scripture speaks more
directly to the question of interest on loans. So let us consider first the question of capital
accumulated through lending and borrowing money at interest—an indispensable element of
modern capitalism. Large sums of money are needed for major manufacturing or marketing
efforts. In the socialistic system these funds may be accumulated through taxation, but in a
private enterprise system it is normally necessary to borrow funds to “capitalize” an
enterprise. Even wealthy people cannot normally afford such investment; so money is
accumulated by borrowing from many people through the medium of giving them part
ownership (stock) in the corporation, or through the intermediary of a bank or insurance
company that has already accumulated large sums of money through borrowing. People will
not ordinarily invest in an enterprise without hope of gain; so the corporation must return, in
the form of profits or interest, benefits to the lender.
The Bible consistently speaks against lending money at interest (Ex 22:25-27; Lev
25:37; Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Ezek 18:8-9, 13, 17; 22:12). To complicate matters, Deuteronomy
23:20 forbids charging interest to a fellow Israelite; however, Israelites “may charge interest
to a foreigner.” Should Christians, say, not charge interest to Christians but do so for non-
Christians?
The debt-interest situation in Israel, however, was quite distinct from ours today. In
ancient Israel, loans were commonly made to relieve economic distress (Ex 22:24, 25).
Today, a bank might give loans at interest to a person who wants to start a business; credit
card companies charge interest; banks make loans for home purchases at interest. But the
interest here is not to help destitute people but to allow businesses, which themselves take
risks, to stay afloat and grow or to help individuals buy homes they would otherwise not be
able to afford.
In Moses’ day, charging interest was prohibited to protect the poor Israelite; Israelites
were not to be in bondage to “loan sharks” who could take advantage of the financially
vulnerable. The “foreigner” (nokrî), however, was likely a businessperson seeking to engage
in commerce and was not destitute; so to charge interest to him was no problem. Keep in
mind that Israel was to care for the vulnerable in the land, including the “alien” and the
“stranger.” Walter Kaiser writes that legislation on interest was “not to stifle business or the
practice of corporate laws as we know them today. Its aim was mainly to protect the poor.
The would-be creditor should not take advantage of the economic hardship that had forced
his ‘brother’ . . . to seek a loan.”[14]
In general, we do not view charging interest in modern societies as oppressive or
inherently evil. The enduring point from the law of Moses is not to take advantage of the
financially vulnerable. Whereas the New Testament says nothing about charging interest, its
heartbeat reinforces the ancient injunctions in our obligation to assist the poor or aid fellow
believers.
Debt. The New Testament does speak of indebtedness: “Owe no one anything, except to
love one another” (Rom 13:8 RSV). This does not prohibit going into debt, say, to pay for a
house in manageable increments. Rather, Paul stresses that love is an obligation, not an
option. We owe love because we have freely received it (Mt 10:8).
We find no clear-cut biblical teaching outlawing any and all debt. Financial adviser Larry
Burkett offers this clarification: “The scriptural definition of debt is the inability to meet
obligations agreed upon. In other words, when a person buys something on credit terms, that
is not necessarily a debt, it is a contract. But, when the terms of that contract are violated,
scriptural debt occurs.”[15] So Christians must get out of debt when any of the following
conditions applies:
•
You owe money for goods or services.
•
The value of your unsecured liabilities exceeds total assets (i.e., you would have a
negative balance if you cashed out).
•
Your spending habits (e.g., credit card debt) are preventing your family’s needs (not
wants) from being met—habits that create anxiety.[16]
One appalling kind of debt default is student loans: one out of four college graduates do
not pay off their student loans, nor do most of them even plan to do so—although they will
purchase the latest computer, communication and entertainment technologies. This displays a
serious lack of integrity—a failure to be people of their word and an abdication of personal
responsibility (Ps 15:4).
Cosigning. Avoiding avoidable debt is biblical (Prov 11:15; 22:7, 26), and the Bible
speaks strongly against taking the risk of cosigning—or “giving a pledge” or “putting up
security”—for a neighbor or stranger (Prov 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:8; 22:26-27). It is not sinful to
lend: “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow
from you” (Mt 5:42). Of course, this does not mean we literally give anything to whoever
asks—say, a homeless person with alcohol on his breath. Jesus himself did not give to
everyone who asked of him (Mk 8:11-12; 10:35-40; Lk 12:13-15). Jesus’ point is that if you
are trying to decide between generosity and withholding, choose generosity—the better way.
Yet Jesus’ disciples are to be shrewd and wise with their resources (Lk 16:1-10), and for a
person to put her name to a stranger’s or even a friend’s contract is unwise and can lead to
financial ruin for herself and her family.
From this brief overview of the very limited biblical data on the subject, we conclude that
the Bible does not prohibit profit-making or charging modest and fair interest rates, that it is
prudent to avoid borrowing and lending when possible, that it is permissible to borrow or
lend at interest so long as the rate is not exorbitant or oppressive, that cosigning is to be
avoided, and that generous giving to those in need is a better way.
Personal Integrity and Bankruptcy
We live in a cheating age. In widely available surveys, 75–98 percent of persons polled
acknowledged cheating in high school. This does not bode well for personal integrity when it
comes to economic systems, which demand honesty, completely free from any form of
cheating, stealing or taking advantage of others. Below are temptations that come with our
particular economic system.
Bankruptcy. Here we may distinguish between a fraudulent bankruptcy (the result of
irresponsibility such as overspending or cosigning) and a bankruptcy of desperation (despite
the person’s having shown personal responsibility and caution). Consider, first, the
fraudulent version, which is immoral. While it may be legal to declare bankruptcy to avoid
obligations, preserve personal resources and (with a clever lawyer) build a fortune that can’t
be touched by former creditors, it is not moral and shows a failure of integrity. While formal
bankruptcy status may be necessary to make the transition to a better basis of relating to
one’s creditors, the moral person will not use it as a means of avoiding personal
responsibility.
Another kind of bankruptcy is not the result of irresponsible overspending or negligence.
Debt leading to bankruptcy may be incurred through calamities (e.g., loss of a job, canceled
insurance, auto accident, home destroyed by a tornado or hurricane) or as a result of
desperate measures taken (e.g., significant medical expenses to save a dying child or care for
a chronically ill parent). This kind of persistent indebtedness may often come after having
exhausted personal savings and retirement accounts. Filing for bankruptcy here is of a
different order, and in certain cases a reasonable payment plan can be negotiated—or
sometimes payment is even drastically reduced. This approach to debt alleviation in such dire
circumstances is very much in the spirit of the Jubilee year.
A general lesson here is that God is on the side of the person whose word is reliable, who
makes a commitment—as in a financial obligation—and does not go back on his word, even
when it hurts (Ps 15:4). By contrast, the wicked borrow and don’t pay back (Ps 37:21). The
righteous person assumes responsibility for any debt he has incurred and remains responsible
until the debt is paid or until death.
Litigation. “When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law
before the unrighteous instead of the saints? . . . But brother goes to law against brother, and
that before unbelievers Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1
Cor 6:1, 6-7 RSV).
In light of this clear passage, few sincere believers instigate lawsuits against fellow
believers without qualms. But what if this person who says he is a believer does not behave
like one? Paul replies, “Why not permit yourself to be defrauded rather than bring disrepute
on Jesus’ name?” On the other hand, since Paul makes a distinction between believers and
unbelievers, litigation against an unbeliever or impersonal corporation may be legitimate so
long as the law of love for neighbor (Christian or non-Christian) is not violated—and justice
is served with integrity.
To demand money that is not justly one’s own is a form of stealing that is not made moral
through the instrumentality of a court. Frivolous lawsuits by opportunists—like a woman’s
suing McDonald’s food chain after she spilled hot coffee on herself—are a scandal in our law
courts. If every church member in the United States refused to go to court to demand
“whatever I can get” when suffering some real or imagined wrong, the insurance rates for
accidents and malpractice would tumble.
Anything beyond reasonable and just compensation is an attempt to defraud—an assault
on the whole society, driving up the cost of products, services and insurance for everyone. It
is not always wrong to demand punitive damages beyond compensation, but such cases
should be clearly established as malicious or willful neglect. On the other hand, corporate
lawyers, insurance companies and corporations must be fair in awarding legitimate claims, or
they, in turn, will be guilty of defrauding and oppressing the weaker party.
An avaricious and corrupt society is drowning in the quagmire of litigation that its own
sin has created. Success in unwarranted litigation is stealing.
Poverty and Wealth
Both Testaments have much to say about poverty and wealth, but what is poverty? What
is wealth? We shall never agree.
The first reason is that each society and culture determines how material possessions are
secured, used and viewed. One might suggest that the dividing line between the poor and
those who are not is having basic necessities and what is adequate for one’s subsistence and
livelihood. But what counts for necessities and adequate in one society will be different from
another. The answers depend, to some extent, on what is considered poverty or wealth in a
given community or society.
Second, these questions are very personal and charged with intense emotion. It is difficult
to be detached and objective because any definition may threaten my own status. It is always
wise to read the Bible crossculturally—with brothers and sisters from other cultures. It may
be very revealing to do so when it comes to passages on wealth and poverty—passages we
might otherwise breeze past.
Let’s assume that rigid dividing lines between rich and poor are not easy to come by, that
the vast majority of Americans are far wealthier than their counterparts in most non-Western
nations, and that specific applications across the board may not be possible. Is wealth
considered anything more than basic necessities? Let us also assume that the primary
emphasis in Scripture on this subject is the loving response of those who have to those who
do not. Still, problems persist.
A basic problem is the apparently radical difference between what the Old and New
Testaments say about wealth. Jacques Ellul makes the sweeping statement: “Incontestably, in
the New Testament wealth is condemned,” whereas the Old Testament sees it as God’s
blessing.[17]
How shall we assess this assertion? Perhaps we could say, first, that in the theocratic
nation of ancient Israel, material blessings were promised for covenant obedience and
material curses for disobedience in a physical location (Lev 26; Deut 28). By contrast,
Christians are scattered throughout the nations, and their ultimate allegiance is to a heavenly
kingdom. Second, the New Testament does not teach that wealth is a sign of God’s
blessing and often condemns the rich: “Blessed are you poor,” but “woe to you who are rich”
(Lk 6:20, 24; see Mt 19:24; Lk 16:13-14; 18:25). But aren’t there ungodly, greedy poor? And
should we all “sell [our] possessions” (Lk 12:33-34; 14:33)? What do these passages mean?
How should we appropriate them?
A closer look at the New Testament. As we look more closely at the New Testament, a
few themes begin to take shape.
•
As with the Old Testament, God has a special concern for the poor, needy and
vulnerable in society (Lk 4:18). Some incorrectly speak of God’s “bias” for the poor, as
though God is less concerned for the wealthy.
•
There are far more temptations and spiritual dangers with wealth than with poverty
— finding security in it, insulating ourselves from the needs of others, stinginess, comparison
to others. Wealth and godliness, though possible, are uncommon. The Bible never says that
possession of wealth is sinful.
•
Contrary to Ellul’s comment about the New Testament’s wholesale condemnation of
wealth, the New Testament speaks approvingly of many wealthy followers of Christ. In Luke
6, Jesus says that the poor are “blessed” but “woe” to the rich (Lk 6:20, 24). Yet two chapters
later we read of well-to-do women who supported Jesus out of their means (Lk 8:1-3).
Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy disciple of Christ (Mt 25:57). Jesus ate meals at people’s
homes and stayed with them (e.g., Lk 10:38-42;Jn 12:1-2). As R. T. France noted: “Jesus’
very dependence on hospitality and contributions from supporters demanded that a
considerable number of his followers were not without private means.”[18]In the epistles, we
see how Paul’s ministry depended on the generosity of others. In Romans 16:1-2, Paul
mentions Phoebe, a prominent woman and financial “patron” (prostatis); Gaius (Rom
16:23a) had hosted Paul and the entire Corinthian church, and Paul mentions the prominent
Erastus (Rom 16:23b)—the city’s director of public works or “steward” (oikonomos). What
of Jesus’ words that one could not be Jesus’ disciple unless he gave up all his possessions (Lk
14:33)? Actually, Jesus’ own disciples only temporarily left their possessions behind (cf. Mt
19:27). Peter still had his home (Mk 1:29-30) as well as fishing boat and tackle (Jn 21:3-11).
And we have seen that Jesus had well-off disciples, and there were many wealthy but
generous Christian patrons in the early church. The point is that wealth should not be
idolatrously clutched, but held lightly and used generously for the spread of God’s kingdom.
•
The Bible does not advocate appropriating the wealth of the rich (cf. Acts 5:4). While
Jesus commanded the rich young man to sell all he had, give to the poor, and then follow
Christ (Lk 18:22), in the very next chapter he noticeably does not do so to Zacchaeus, who
generously makes restitution from his wealth (Lk 19:1-9). In1 Timothy 6:17-19, the rich are
not instructed to become poor. Indeed, as Dallas Willard noted, the worst way to help the
poor is to become poor. Scripture does not tell us to imitate the poor but to help them.[19]The
rich are not instructed to divest themselves totally, but rather to be rich toward God and give
to those who are in need. The way to fight greed and a false security in “the uncertainty of
riches” is to be generous with our resources.
•
The incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Christ are the new model for showing
generosity (2 Cor 8–9), not the Old Testament tithe. Christ became (materially) poor so that
we through his poverty might become (spiritually) rich (2 Cor 8:9). Jesus, not Abraham or
the Mosaic law, should be our model.
What then is “excess”? Each one is accountable to one’s own master. “Who are you to
pass judgment on the servant of another?” (Rom 14:4 RSV). But it must
mean something, and something that consumer-oriented Americans apparently find difficult
to comprehend.
Living more simply. In a society of excess, luxury, and waste, Western Christians should
cultivate a spirit of contentment and learn to say, “Enough!” (Phil 4:10-13). We should learn
to live more simply that others may simply live. At the great Lausanne Congress on
Evangelism, several thousand church leaders committed themselves to this simplicity: “We
cannot hope to attain this goal without sacrifice. All of us are shocked by the poverty of
millions and disturbed by the injustices which cause it. Those of us who live in affluent
circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple lifestyle in order to contribute more
generously to both relief and evangelism.”
But what is a simple lifestyle? Though the debate is never-ending, let us, for practical
purposes, make an attempt to describe it, following 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 and 1 Timothy 6:8.
If “absolute poverty” is defined as living below subsistence level, and “poverty” is defined as
subsistence-level living without things others in the society consider necessities, perhaps a
“simple lifestyle” would be having one’s basic necessities or “needs” met (see table 27.1).
This is the kind of “equality” which Paul is urging.
Table 27.1. A Simple Lifestyle in Perspective
Absolute
Poverty
Poverty
Simple
Lifestyle
Wealth
Riches
Below
Subsistence,
Basic
Possessions
Abundant wealth,
subsistence:
but lack of
necessities as
beyond
hoarded for
lack of food
other
defined by a
necessities
protection or used
and housing
necessities
given society
for extravagant
living
Again, if this comes anywhere near to indicating a biblical view, then, as Paul urges in 2
Corinthians 8, believers who live above a simple lifestyle (having “abundance”) should
sacrifice to the limits of their faith and love in an effort to assist those who live below that
level so that their basic necessities (“needs”) are attended to so that there is “equality” (2 Cor
8:13-14). Every believer in the church having her basic needs met—not redistribution of
wealth—appears to be what Paul means by “equality” (see table 27.2).
Table 27.2. What Paul Means by “Equality”
“Need”
“Equality”
“Abundance”
Absolute Poverty
Poverty
Simple Lifestyle
Wealth
Riches
Thus, the believer who has possessions above basic necessities can hardly rest at ease so
long as there are those who lack basic necessities.
Also, to live more simply, we must begin by distinguishing
between needs and desires, and we should refuse to let Madison Avenue define needs for us.
We don’t need “new” or “name brand.” In our throwaway culture, Christians should think
about “recycling” clothes or household items. Perhaps Christians can think more in terms of
hand-me-downs, second-hand or thrift stores, and garage sales. What about savings, auto and
home insurance, retirement accounts? On the one hand, we must remember that we cannot—
nor should we attempt to—insulate ourselves from all possible risks or control the future. If
we do, what room is left for trusting in our heavenly Father? That said, we must also
consider whether failure to attend to these matters will place significant burdens on others.
What about leaving a large inheritance to one’s children? Few can handle wealth well,
and a large inheritance may actually contribute to a false sense of security, encouraging trust
in the uncertainty of riches rather than in God. It seems wiser to leave a more modest—rather
than extravagant—inheritance to our children so that we may more directly invest our
resources into the kingdom of God, in addition to teaching our children the benefits and joys
of earning their own way.[20]
As we think through various viewpoints on poverty and wealth in the light of Scripture,
we commend John Wesley’s dictum in revised form: “Get all you can, save all you can, give
all you can.” Perhaps it will serve as a summary statement of the individual’s responsibility if
we qualify this carefully: Earn all you can with integrity, save all you can toward
meeting known future obligations, give all you can in sacrificial love and faith in the God
who provides.
Social Responsibility
State. In addition to our walking humbly before God, he also requires that we not only
“act justly,” but also “love mercy” (Mic 6:8). The state has a responsibility to maintain
justice for all citizens. However, as is powerfully illustrated in Victor Hugo’s novel Les
Misérables, Inspector Javert is concerned only for law and justice; he has no sense of context
or moral proportion concerning the situation of Jean Valjean, who had stolen a loaf of bread
to feed his sister’s family. Valjean is caught and sentenced to years in Toulon prison. After
nineteen years Valjean escapes, and it becomes Javert’s life’s mission to find him and have
him punished. Javert’s cold legalism and lack of personal concern for others are crushing and
ultimately self-destructive.
Justice is not enough when the weak and oppressed are in need of care and relief. While
not ignoring justice, mercy is life-giving and assists people in their misery rather than leaving
them mired in it. The first line of defense in showing mercy is the family; they have an
obligation to attend to their kin in need (1 Tim 5:8). The church too must take seriously its
own responsibilities for the family of faith. Beyond this, governments have a primary
obligation to needy citizens at home—though not to neglect meeting needs in other lands as
able. As noted above, how the government attempts to help is crucial. Compassionate
feelings or merciful motives are inadequate in themselves.
The church. Care for its own. Corporate responsibility in the church begins with the
obligation to fully care for its own. This care is not merely “spiritual.” The early church
attended to the basic needs of those in their midst (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1; 11:29-30; 2
Cor 8–9). Local congregations assumed responsibility for the poor and widows in their midst
—but also those in great need in other congregations. Paul gave instructions for widow-care
(1 Tim 5:1-16), but he warned against idleness and all forms of “freeloading” ( 2 Thess 3:6-
15). If one didn’t work, one wasn’t to eat.
Care for others. The church has primary responsibility for its own but is instructed to
care also, as able, for others in need. We should be generous to “all men, and especially to
those who are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:10 RSV). This need not only be monetary or
material. It can extend to teaching one’s native tongue to international students or refugees,
tutoring underprivileged public school children, visiting prisoners and helping their families,
or offering financial advice in a struggling community.
Addressing the government. Furthermore, in matters of righteousness, justice and mercy,
the church is to speak prophetically to the state. The believer may lose her head for the effort
(as John the Baptist did when he rebuked the king), or he may be discriminated against and
immobilized (as Jeremiah was). Much of the suffering of prophets and apostles resulted from
confronting state authority. In our day, many pastors are positively timid about the evils of
abortion and do not speak up on the topic of gay marriage. It is always dangerous to cross
governmental authority, yet this is the risk a faithful church must take when the state does
wrong.
Using money and getting money. Finally, the church must act in integrity in getting and
using money. Churches are under obligation not to misuse (or even appear to misuse) money.
Paul exemplified this: he worked with his own hands, labored long, coveted no one’s
possessions, and refused to be a burden to anyone (Acts 20:33-35; 2 Cor 11:6-9; 1 Thess 2:5-
10). Peter cursed Simon for seeking to use the gospel as a means of gain (Acts 8:18-20).
Consider first the use of money. While some in society may look down on TV
personalities who live in luxury, pastors with extravagant salaries and opulent lifestyles will
be more closely scrutinized and more roundly criticized. What about the ways
of getting money? As an example of “full information with solicitation,” Paul commanded
believers to give to support the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-3; 2 Cor 8); but George Müller
of Bristol with his orphans and Hudson Taylor of the China Inland Mission told no one but
God of their needs (“no information, no solicitation”). A third method is “full information, no
solicitation”—sharing about financial needs with partners in ministry while asking only God
for money. Should one method be adopted over others?
Of course, no method pleases God if we do not ultimately trust him to supply, and we
should certainly not place our faith in gimmicks or formulas. Certain “successful”
fundraising tactics may not be pleasing to God. However, we do not see any one method as
divinely approved over against the other two mentioned above.
Of course, unscrupulous, deceptive methods should never be used in fundraising. One
leading African evangelistic mission introduced a starving child, Kori, to faithful supporters,
with a heartrending plea for funds in November 1982. The fatal error was in using the same
photograph a few months later in July 1983 but calling her Sera and claiming she lived in a
different place from “Kori.” Another form of deception is the “bait and switch.” The money
is solicited for one cause but diverted to another, even to the personal benefit of the luxury-
loving leader. A third unscrupulous method is psychological manipulation—inducing people
to do things they wouldn’t do if you approached them in a straightforward, honest way. One
of the basic “rules” of the fundraising game is that there must be a crisis once a month to
produce maximum income. Even if a crisis did not happen, some fundraisers advocate
“creating” one. Another manipulative tactic is to make the computer-generated letter seem
highly personal so that it appears the TV preacher is a personal friend of yours if you give a
certain amount per month. Other methods promise beautifully engraved permanent plaques
with the very generous donor’s name on it. One could be part of a “Golden Circle” of
supporters, whose names are well-publicized for their especially large gift. Churches and
ministries have developed a celebrity system with speakers demanding astronomical sums,
posh accommodations and insulation from contact with people apart from their time “on
stage.”
Unbiblical teaching about money is often a problem too. Many TV personalities and
songwriters promulgate the prosperity gospel—if you love Jesus (and especially if you send
us cash), you will prosper financially, be healthy in body and be successful in all things.
Simply by asserting “I am healed” or “I am rich,” we have what we ask: “What I confess, I
possess.”
While there are no doubt lessons to be learned about more boldly trusting in God, such a
belief system,[21] renders humans sovereign and God their servant. This is far removed from
Daniel’s three friends who said to Nebuchadnezzar: “Our God whom we serve is able to
deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.
But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your
gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Dan 3:17-18). While we should
approach God confidently (Heb 4:12), we should not approach presumptuously. This “name
it and claim it” heresy is opposed to the spirit of Jesus himself, who said, “Not My will, but
Yours be done” (Lk 22:42). And we could add Paul too, who learned to be content and find
strength in Christ whatever his circumstances (Phil 4:10-13); when denied what he
repeatedly requested, he was promised Christ’s sufficient grace (2 Cor 12:7-10). As for the
gospel and money, we should adopt Paul’s approach: “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the
word of God for profit” (2 Cor 2:17 NIV).
Corporate Integrity
Ways to lose it. There are many ways a business can steal besides abusing its employees
or lying in its advertising. Price gouging, making inferior products and planned obsolescence
are common ways of short-changing the consumer, ethically and materially. In an effort to
keep a consumption-driven economy rolling, advertising manipulates consumers into buying
what is not needed or what is not long wanted. The ways of misusing fellow humans for
financial gain seem endless.
But there are those who do business the other way. The owner of a successful Atlanta-
based corporation told me (Robertson) that he had recently adopted a new corporate motto:
“A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches” (Prov 22:1 RSV). As I reflected on
this bold decision to restructure a business on a biblical principle, it gradually dawned on me
that this proverb sets on its head standard business practice, especially the advertising
business. The bottom line is supposed to be financial profit (“great riches” of another sort)
rather than a good name built on solid character as the foundation for doing business. In fact,
the purpose of creating a “good” name through advertising is to build profits. Whoever heard
of using resources to demonstrate trustworthiness, to benefit the consumer so consistently
that reputation is established in a good name? And yet what could be more clearly in the
interest of glorifying God in a business?
Automation and technology. One further way of corporate injustice has been alleged:
automation. We have been unable to identify any biblical principle that could be used to
oppose transfer of labor from people to labor-saving devices. It is quite possible, of course, to
make the transition in unjust or unmerciful ways, but guilt for this failure should not be
assigned to the machine or those designing it.
We could add that technology and automation replace persons in other ways. First,
technology has a secularizing effect, further removing us from God—the ultimate personal
being—by diminishing our trust in him and thus shriveling up our prayer lives. Why depend
on God when technology is at our fingertips and everyday life seems to hang together so
well? If we allow it, technology subtly leads to a kind of control over reality, but the
downside is that our world becomes increasingly mechanized. Ever so subtly, Christians can
become practical atheists, as dependence on God is displaced with dependence on
technology; as a result moderns become not so much hostile to God, but indifferent to him.
Overdependence on technology can also turn us into empty selves—mere whisps of
persons who have surrendered their rational thought, critical thinking and creativity to
entertainment. We must recognize this danger in order to combat it lest we enter a brave new
world in which we surrender critical thinking while we “amuse ourselves to death.”
Technology also cut us off from community; it depersonalizes life. Even though we are
more “connected” than ever through Facebook, text messaging and email, we seem to be
more distant from each other and shallower in our relationships. Technology can isolate us
from each other. Think of children watching videos in the family van instead of engaging
with the family—or how even children in strollers are using iPads and thus being less
engaged with the world around them. Think of how cell phones or text messages interrupt
our conversation, how students will gather around YouTube video clips for entertainment,
how a dating couple or a group of friends will sit at a restaurant table checking their iPhones
or texts instead of conversing.
Relationships in America are becoming three thousand miles wide and half an inch deep.
We are wise to keep in check the influence of technology not only on our children, but also
ourselves. Knowing the danger is the first step to combating it.[22]
Poverty, Famine, Population Explosion
Poverty.There are three main types of poverty in the world. Collective poverty (which
includes class and regional poverty) is the semipermanent insufficiency of the material
means of life for an entire population and can be applied to nations such as
India. Cyclical poverty is the widespread but temporary deprivation caused by disease, crop
failure or economic breakdown (such as the government-generated high unemployment rates
during the 1930s). Individual poverty is a condition of want that results from an individual’s
misfortune or inability to work, including widows, orphans, physically handicapped,
outcasts, aged, mentally deficient and alcoholics.[23]
Scripture does rebuke those who are poor as a result of laziness (Prov 6:6-11). Scripture
speaks with greater force against poverty due to oppression, whether individual or corporate.
Jesus came to proclaim good news to the poor and release to captives, and to liberate the
oppressed (Lk 4:18-19). This is not merely setting people free from sin. As Matthew
25 makes clear, Christ will judge people on his return, and the indicator of redemption is, at
least in part, measured by bringing relief to physical need and oppression. Yes, Jesus speaks
here of caring for “my brothers”—that is, his disciples (Mt 25:40; cf. Mt 12:46-50).
However, Proverbs 19:17 reminds us that the one “who is gracious to a poor man lends to
the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.” Some people are simply trapped in
cycles of oppression and poverty. Think of the Dalits (or “untouchables”)—the very “lowest”
in Indian society. Throughout many parts of the world, opportunity eludes people, and they
are trapped in persistent poverty and oppression.
We could note that certain oppressive religious structures contribute to these persistent
conditions of poverty and oppression, whether the caste system in India or the general
eclipsing of women in Islam. However, our main concern is not to pinpoint systemic
“causes,” but to highlight with Scripture the importance of both corporate (communal) as
well as individual responsibility.
Scripture calls for both broad-based action and private involvement. Change must begin
with the individual—and let us not forget the role of redemption (and thus the role of
evangelism) as critical to generating significant internal change. That said, all individuals are
responsible to involve those in their sphere of influence to find corporate solutions, whether a
mother with her children, a pastor with his church, a businesswoman with her policies, or a
public servant with his power to change and use the structures of society to promote justice
and mercy.
Also, people within their own nations must press for legal and political reforms—ones
that will be consistently enforced by the government—so that every person will be treated
justly before the law. This is a common path to helping people climb out of poverty. For
example, Hernando de Soto’s classic book The Other Path documents how Peru, because of
its poverty and economic disarray, had become vulnerable to terrorist groups such as the
Shining Path, black market forces and corruption. Through the initiative of the Fujimori
government, the de Soto Institute for Liberty and Democracy crafted laws regarding property
rights and contracts, which eventually led to a full-fledged economy and the eventual defeat
of the Shining Path.[24]
Starvation and population explosion. Back in the early 1980s, I (Paul) received as a gift
the rather depressing Global 2000 Report to the President; this book contains frightening
predictions of Doomsday proportions regarding increased scarcity of resources and forecasts
all manner of shortages and natural resource disasters. Paul Ehrlich, noted for his
gloomy Population Bomb predictions, said that hundreds of millions would starve to death in
the 1970s.
As it turns out, rumors of humanity’s pending death have been greatly exaggerated. For
example, extreme poverty has been reduced by half in the developing world since the 1980s;
life expectancy has doubled around the world in the last hundred years; India’s average
caloric intake is 50 percent higher than it was in 1950; China’s food supply increased by 80
percent between 1961 and 2002; the percentage of starving people worldwide has dropped
from 38 percent in 1970 to 18 percent in 2001; quality drinking water is more widely
available.[25] This not to say that all is rosy in the world, but significant improvements in the
health and quality of life of people throughout the world are undeniable realities.
Besides this, we are seeing two forces at work—
urbanization and globalization. Urbanization—the growth of urban centers as rural
populations stream there—brings various social problems (lagging infrastructure, crowded
conditions, urban sprawl, poverty, pollution, sexual slavery). The same could have been said
for now-developed urban centers a hundred years ago. As for globalization, the world has
become smaller and more interconnected through information and technology, the global
market, communications and democracy—factors contributing to “globalization.” On the
downside, globalization tends to homogenize or “flatten” cultures through the exporting of
McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Hollywood (what Benjamin Barber calls
“McWorld”). In response to these developments, there is pushback from various religious
and tribalistic forces (which Barber labels “Jihad”).[26] These tensions call for vigilance to
protect human rights and religious freedoms but also to take measures to preserve culture
while freeing them up to flourish economically.
This is not to say that poverty, accompanied by hunger and starvation, are no longer a
concern. We all should be concerned about addressing these concerns in the right way. What
is their cause and cure? Some claim the problem is overpopulation while others say it is
the distribution of available resources. In his day, British clergyman Thomas Malthus (1766–
1834) predicted massive overpopulation and subsequent depletion of available resources to
feed humankind. Many today make similar claims. However, we noted in chapter twenty that
the “teeming masses” are not found in India or China but rather in densely populated
countries such as Holland, Belgium and Japan; we also pointed out that if the earth’s
population were nine billion (it’s nearly seven billion at present), we could fit every man,
woman and child into the state of Texas (262,134 square miles of land) with each person
having 850 square feet for himself—and the rest of the earth would be empty.
[27] Furthermore, the world’s population is growing, but it is not generally more crowded. In
fact, in places such as Russia, Japan and various Western European countries, populations are
shrinking. For example, Russia’s population will drop by thirty million people by 2050.
[28] Despite straight-line mathematical calculations, the actual facts about population growth
and distribution are not as frightening.
Scholars Herman Kahn and Julian Simon have argued that, in actual human existence, at
present there are no known limits to healthy growth and that overpopulation is an
unnecessary worry. When legal provisions and equal opportunity are part of a culture, human
innovation through science keeps inventing ways of producing more and alternate energy and
food resources and wealth generation; think of how a resource as basic as sand has been used
to produce computer chips and fiber-optic cables. Some countries simply fail to appropriate
their own natural resources.
Population tends to be self-limited as poverty decreases, or limited by catastrophe if
poverty increases. That is, science, education and enlightened governmental policies (e.g.,
private property laws) enable people to advance economically, and then they tend to stop
having as many children. And this is what we see happening in the world. History itself
shows that limits to growth have also come through disease, famine or war.
As we assess the evidence, we cannot conscientiously advocate demanding a limit to
population growth. And if a nation does make population limitation a matter of public policy,
it should not go about it in the manner of mainland China’s mandatory one-child policy—a
policy of abortion and coercive family limitation, which is not acceptable. Sadly, as we saw
earlier, China is reaping a whirlwind of missing girls in its population and dramatically
affecting China’s future and national well-being. Ethical ways of going about limiting
population growth involve persuasion, education and perhaps feasible incentives.
Helping the poor abroad.How should we help the poor around the world? Of course, in
emergency situations of famine or other natural disasters, we give immediate,
tangible emergency aid to those who have been ravaged. As a matter of course, however,
simply handing out financial “aid” to other governments has proven disastrous since it
typically goes into the pockets of thugs, tyrants and dictators. The problem in many of these
nations is not potential resources (Ethiopia, say, has more arable land than Great Britain, but
does not utilize it well).[29]
Poverty in other lands is not due to “unfair competition,” nor is it a matter of an economic
zero-sum game: “if I win, you will have to lose.” This is the view that prosperity in
developed nations is causally linked to poverty in developing ones—a view known as the
“dependency theory.” This view has been thoroughly discredited by the facts of history and
the realities on the ground. It has come to be abandoned by many in places such as Latin
America precisely because it has led to many failed policies that harmed the poor.[30]
The problems are more often widespread corruption, inequality before the law, no legal
protections of contracts and private property, no genuine opportunity to appropriate national
resources, no opportunity for investment, and no protection of the value of currency (which
leads to inflation). Free nations should continually apply political pressure for structural
changes to protect from such abuses. They should press for excluding thug, rights-abusing
nations from having influence in places such as the United Nations, which has had a sullied
reputation of catering to “thugocracies.”
One attempt to help the poor in other nations has been through “fair trade.” For example,
people will pay a bit more for their coffee to support coffee growers in Costa Rica rather than
buying it more cheaply at Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts. After all, don’t these corporations
exploit coffee growers by paying them less? Actually, coffee growers are not being forced to
grow coffee; in fact, they do have jobs thanks to these large corporations, which must
process, package and market their product. Also, “fair trade” has a downside: it actually
locks coffee growers into generating one product or being in one line of work. They may be
confined to growing one kind of crop without the opportunity to switch to another crop if
demand for (pricier) coffee should drop—nor do they have the option to use their land for a
nonagricultural business.[31]
One practical way to make a difference in the lives of the poor is in the area of
microenterprise development. In the late 1980s, my (Paul’s) wife Jacqueline and a friend
helped established what is now called PEER Servants (www.peerservants.org); this
innovative ministry utilized the concept of microfinance loans in order to help the poor in
developing nations become economically self-sufficient. This ministry was inspired by
a New York Times story about the successful Grameen Bank of Bangladesh (founded in
1976), whose founder, Muhammad Yunus, would later be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for
his groundbreaking work. The basic concept is this: willing entrepreneurs with good
character references can begin their own business with a loan from an organization that raises
funds for this very purpose. They can purchase goats, mechanic’s tools or a sewing machine
to begin a business. Once the business gets going, they pay back the loan at minimal interest,
and the next person in line becomes a loan recipient. Western-funded foreign aid (aside from
assisting with emergency relief) has not helped the poor in developing nations, as we have
noted. PEER Servants, which raises funds for loan partners throughout the world, has helped
many hundreds of thousands of people move out of poverty to economic self-sufficiency.[32]
Wealth creation has not come through government programs. Rather, PEER Servants—
virtually all volunteers rather than paid staff—raises capital for microfinance loans and then
works with reputable churches or missions organizations in other nations to offer loans to
people of character without strings attached, and, as a result, many lives have also been
transformed by the gospel. Other organizations such as Partners International and World
Relief have also been aiding the poor in this way.
Helping the poor at home. What about helping the disadvantaged poor closer to home?
[33] One approach advocates that we stop giving out money in order that the poor become
more responsible for themselves and less dependent on others. While this approach has some
truth to it, to the ears of many this tack, by itself, can sound calloused and lacking in
compassion. Another approach tends to measure compassion by dollars directed toward
social programs. As we have seen above, this “handout-without-responsibility” approach,
though well-intentioned, has been disastrous. Besides being wasteful, this approach typically
breeds long-term dependency as well as creating a deepened and regularly reinforced sense
of entitlement.
The government should not support the able-bodied who can find work but refuse to;
with this point in mind, the welfare reform of 1996 helped move many people from welfare
to work and shrank welfare case-loads. But to help the disadvantaged poor, they must also be
empowered, which can come through several important avenues. First, empowerment comes
through safety and crime reduction in poor neighborhoods (e.g., citizens volunteering to
patrol unsafe neighborhoods in cooperation with local law enforcement authorities). Second,
empowerment comes through loving relationships and support structures to rebuild
relationships—particularly the preservation of the traditional family. As out-of-wedlock
births increase, so does the likelihood of poverty, crime and unemployment. Of course,
political and social leaders must address the breakdown of the family directly, calling for
moral and personal responsibility rather than ignoring it. In our politically correct culture,
many are reluctant to call certain behaviors wrong, and this only exacerbates the problem.
Furthermore, concerned citizens can serve as role models, mentors, friends and tutors;
churches, ministries and community organizations can offer not only relationships,
accountability and role-modeling, but they can help strengthen marriages and families as
well as offer broad-based support (e.g., Christian churches, Big Brothers/Sisters, Alcoholics
Anonymous, Salvation Army, Prison Fellowship, Catholic Charities). In fact, before
government welfare programs formally came into existence, America’s churches and
volunteer and charitable organizations served to assist and empower the poor: they urged
family involvement to help care for their own flesh and blood; they encouraged personal
responsibility and accountability; they insisted on labor for food—unlike many of our soup
kitchens today! Marvin Olasky’s book The Tragedy of American Compassion tells of this
seemingly lost, but powerful, chapter of our nation’s history.
Another means of empowering the poor is education.Unfortunately, public education has
failed the poor, and parents—not teachers’ unions and bureaucrats—must take ownership of
their schools once again, including competitive school options rather than being confined to
dead-end, failing schools. (The film Waiting for Superman attempts to illustrate this point.)
One important way to do this is through injecting some competition into the educational
system, granting tax vouchers for less-fortunate parents who can then send their children to
schools that are actually performing well, as we have mentioned. Despite the rhetoric of
many Washington politicians to support public schools unconditionally, they themselves
typically send their own children to private schools. Even public school teachers in places
such as Chicago are sending their own children to private schools “in droves.”[34]
Another important element in empowering the poor is the redemptive uplift that spiritual
regeneration through Christ can bring. Marvin Olasky points out in his book that before
government programs, Christian volunteer organizations (“charities”) and churches knew
that the only answer to the habits and mindsets of some people was God and his grace. They
could be transformed from being idle and irresponsible into being frugal, industrious and
self-controlled. The gospel has power to transform attitudes and behavior, including one’s
work ethic.
These are some practical ways in which the poor can be holistically empowered, and the
church should once again take its place and fully engage genuine poverty in our midst—and
avoid failed “solutions” that continue to plague our society.
Creation Care
In the 1960s, Lynn White Jr. attacked the Christian faith as the chief reason for the
destruction of nature and claimed that Eastern religion—even animism—is the preferred eco-
friendly alternative.[35] True, our industrial history has been full of exploiters and wasters of
natural resources (some of them professing Christians) who, without regard to the well-being
of future generations, have left the earth in much worse condition than when they found it.
They have not loved their not-yet-existent neighbors as themselves. We should be concerned
about air and water pollution, acid rain, chemical dumping, species extinction[36] and other
indications of the abuse of our stewardship. While White’s essay and the increasing interest
in environmental issues by society at large have provoked Christians to reexamine the
biblical teaching about creation care, we can rightly question White’s basic thesis.
Fundamental to the human calling as priest-kings is to be co-rulers with the triune God
over the creation (Gen 1:26-28; Ps 8). Christ, the true human, came to restore our humanity
and revitalize our calling as priest-kings as part of God’s new creation (1 Pet 2:9; Rev
1:6; 5:10; cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Ours is not a gnostic—or otherworldly—spirituality that
disregards the “very good” physical creation God has made (Gen 1:31). Just as the triune,
relational God lovingly cares for and tends to his creation (Ps 104), we are called to be
caretakers with God—stewards of our God-given responsibility. Humans are called not only
to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth,” but also to “subdue” and “rule over” it (Gen
1:28). Yet this mandate includes being cultivators of the earth, as Genesis 2 indicates.
These Genesis texts indicate that humans, though in God’s image, are part of creation. So
this requires humble, not arrogant, treatment of creation. God is pleased when humans use
their strength, ingenuity and cooperation to construct irrigation systems for communities,
create communication technologies, “subdue” diseases like malaria and polio, and perform
corrective surgeries on children born with cleft palates.
As co-rulers with God, we must remember that the triune God owns everything (Ps 24:1).
We are just tenants or stewards with a weighty responsibility. We can care for it—or abuse,
deplete and destroy it (cf. Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-7).
Loren Wilkinson attacks the fatalistic notion that there is nothing Christians can do to
care for creation. He enjoins us to follow the three R’s—reduce, reuse and recycle. Yet
Christians must do more, including resisting the values and allure of a consumer society as
well as rejoicing at the wonder and promises of creation.[37] Driving through the breathtaking
Canadian Rockies in summer or the fall foliage of New England or going snorkeling through
coral reefs that teem with life and color can help us elevate our theology of creation and our
concern for the amazing world God has made.
The creation is not an instrument to be used for our ends; rather, we are to care for it and
appropriate its resources for the glory of God and the benefit of humankind. Moreover, it
seems wiser that Christians should speak with greater theological clarity about “creation,”
“creation care,” “theology of creation,” and the like rather than the often ideologically loaded
—and sometimes anti-Christian—language of “environmentalism” or “ecology.” These
movements may devalue human dignity (by accusing Christians of “speciesism” in giving
priority to humans over animals and elevating human beings), denigrate human beings (as an
accursed species on the planet) or even idolize nature (as with the pantheistic-sounding
“Love your Mother [Earth]” slogan).
We live wisely by caring for creation; to do so means a life of loving others—not yet
born—as ourselves. We should do what we feasibly can to work for a cleaner, more vibrant
and life-sustaining planet and attempt to reverse damage done to creation by previous
generations. In the process of caring for creation, we should not harm the poor or unduly
burden ordinary citizens. For example, vast resources that could be used to address genuine
societal needs are being marshaled to combat “human-generated climate change”—the
evidence for which is at best mixed and at worst fudged or fabricated.[38] A more obvious
approach would be to, say, prevent malaria and water-borne diseases,
which directly and immediately affect many millions of human lives. Or consider how the
massive production of biofuels like ethanol from corn can actually diminish food supplies
that could otherwise aid the starving poor in other parts of the world.[39] We must operate
with proper priorities that take basic human needs into account.
We should be prudent in assessing often ideologically loaded, sometimes pantheistically
based “environmental” claims, but we should continue to examine the evidence, adopt
lifestyles that do not strain our environment, and attempt to “clean up after ourselves.”[40]
Gambling
Should not the subject of gambling be under the heading of “Personal Integrity” rather
than “Social Responsibility”? We chose the social context for considering the ethics of
gambling because it is very difficult—if not impossible—to make a convincing case from
Scripture against gambling as inherently sinful, but it is no difficult task at all to marshal
biblical evidence against gambling as a social evil.
Even though games of chance and other forms of gambling predate the writing of
Scripture, the Bible is silent on the subject. Perhaps that is why the church has vacillated in
its teaching. But on what grounds have Christians condemned it? The charge that it is a form
of stealing seems ill-founded since stealing is taking by force that which one has no right to
take. In the case of gambling, the loser has agreed in advance, and the risk of loss is freely
undertaken in the hope of making a gain or having fun. Or does it violate the law
against covetousness. This is certainly true for the serious gambler, but it can hardly be
alleged against the person who gambles for recreation. What about putting money down for a
fun evening of bingo, for a raffle ticket to win a prize, or, as my (Paul’s) late landlady did,
play bridge with friends for literal pennies? Some have claimed that gambling is an
unnecessary risk that seeks selfish gain at another’s expense. But are these sinful attitudes
inherent in the act?
The most common argument against gambling is the sovereignty of God—to deliberately
take a risk on an uncertain outcome is to call in question God’s sovereign control of our
affairs or actually to invoke God’s involvement in our attempt to gain at another’s expense.
The same argument was used in earlier centuries against insurance. Life is full of risks and
prudent “gambles” based on the law of averages: purchasing health insurance, investing in
the stock market, putting money in the bank. These are good-faith efforts to reduce risk or
receive an honest return on investment. And those doing so have every right to humbly ask
the Almighty to intervene should they err. Not so with high-stakes gambling.
Though a more weighty argument, the divine sovereignty criterion is not compelling for
two reasons. First, it is only applicable to the serious gambler. Second, even for the serious
gambler, the argument could be turned the other way. In Scripture gambling was specifically
used in making decisions because humans are finite, and God alone knows and can intervene
in behalf of one party or the other: “The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly
from the LORD” (Prov 16:33 RSV; see also 18:18). In fact, “casting the lot” was standard
practice in settling disputes, dividing the Promised Land, choosing people for a position—all
things that could well be of greater value than money. Even an apostle was so chosen (Acts
1:26). Subjecting the outcome of a decision of great moment to the chance toss of the dice
was seen as deliberately invoking the intervention of the sovereign One, not flouting his will
or authority, much less making light of it. If one deliberately trusts God with the outcome of
a chance event—either “contrived” or unplanned—it can hardly be said that he is resisting
God.
Thus we do not see gambling as inherently evil. A person could conceivably be generous,
not covet, love her neighbor more than herself, and explicitly trust the sovereignty of God
while betting a Coke on the outcome of a game. But that most gamblers violate one or more
of these principles is beyond dispute. Human experience indicates that even recreational
gambling can promote covetousness and lead away from giving as a way of life. It often
nurtures the fantasy that luck rather than hard work is a way to prosperity—a scenario all too
common with lottery tickets. So for this reason we should be cautious in example and speech
so that it may not lead others into habits that are not pleasing to God. This prompts us to ask
about the social impact of gambling.
Social effects of gambling. What are the social effects of gambling? Gambling addicts
(compulsive gamblers) now constitute a higher percentage of the American population than
alcoholics. And the results in poverty-destroyed families are hardly less tragic. The American
Psychiatric Association considers gambling a pathology when people, for instance, lie about
how much they gamble, go into debt to sustain their gambling habit, lose relationships over
gambling, commit crimes to get money to gamble, or feel irritable when trying to quit or cut
back.[41] As such, it becomes a total obsession so that nothing else and no other people really
matter—a fantasy dream world of riches leading to an inability to feel for others, a cloistered
inner life, lying to guard a secret inner world and, commonly, poverty.
The gambling business is dominated by the major crime syndicates. One organized crime
boss said that the syndicates could get along very well on gambling alone even without their
other mainstays: narcotics and prostitution. Estimates of the total take are little more than
wild guesses, ranging up to a half trillion dollars annually.
State lotteries. Why would state governments want to get into such a sordid business?
State governments are gambling that lotteries will provide a painless way to increase
revenues. But to sociologist Roy Kaplan, lotteries are a poor substitute for “dependable,
equitable, and responsible methods of revenue generation.”[42] Often, though not always,
lotteries for educational purposes, say, do little to help individual schools; these funds
can easily be diverted by politicians and bureaucrats. For the funds that are raised for the
state, sometimes less than a 1 percent tax raise would raise the same amount as lotteries—
and lotteries are much less efficient. What’s more, legalized gambling does not curtail
organized crime.
The lottery is no “painless taxation”; it plays on human weakness for a “lucky break.”
And it is no coincidence that where the lottery is, there the vultures of syndicated crime will
gather—that is, with the lottery, the state encourages a new crop of gamblers, and typically
organized crime tends to roost nearby. The lure of the state lottery normally wears off in
about one year, and the state must begin major marketing to enlist new gamblers. The state
cannot compete with professional gamblers in the odds offered; so every new gambler
enlisted is a potential recruit for the professionals. Thus the state finds itself an ally of
organized crime, an exploiter of the poor, a promoter of social blight, and a loser in the
gamble to make a bundle with little effort and little cost. No lottery has begun to measure up
to optimistic projections, and many, within a decade, have failed financially. And who can
calculate the cost to the state in the fight against organized crime and the accompanying
corruption in law enforcement, not to mention the increase in welfare costs for increasing
numbers of gambling losers?
In the light of the way gambling has worked out in the life of the nation, it seems the
most responsible position for the Christian is to abstain from it, particularly when it comes to
state lotteries and pari-mutuel betting (e.g., horse or dog races in which the pool of money
from the bets is divided amongst the winners). Also, church-sponsored gambling should be
avoided as this may encourage the wrong kinds of risk-taking habits that could lead to
something more pernicious.
Non-Property Theft
Varieties of theft. “You shall not steal” applies not only to property; many other things
can be stolen—reputation, for example, the stealing of which deprives the owner of a most
precious possession, his name. Talk that diminishes a person is constantly used to steal a
position, a job, a friendship, or even a marriage. All of these thefts are far more serious in
effect than the theft of property, yet rarely can be prosecuted and never compensated.
Idea theft. Idea theft is often combined with deception to cover the theft, thus violating
the ninth commandment as well. As we have seen, a majority of American students cheat. To
make matters worse, an increasing number of teachers accept the practice. At least one judge
has ruled in favor of the cheater and against the “honor system” that requires students to
report cheating.
To plagiarize is to use another’s writings or ideas and pass them off as one’s own work.
In a copy-and-paste world of electronic research papers, not only students but also scholars
such as notable American historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin have been
caught plagiarizing from others. Some professors even plagiarize from their students. It may
be difficult at times to know when the ideas of others have been so assimilated as to be one’s
own, but the use of quotations from others, giving the impression that they are one’s own
words, or the use of a concept that is unique to its originator clearly violates the
commandments against lying and stealing.
This practice is rife in industry as well. How many technicians or junior executives have
been hired away from their company in order to get at its secrets? So the theft is no longer
merely private but corporate. Churches need to comply with copyright law so as not to rob
authors and artists of their due; churches steal the benefit due an author by duplicating
musical scores for the choir. While the lines can get fuzzy when a piece of literature or art,
published for the general public, becomes public domain, the limits of how long an author or
artist deserves protection for additional benefit that she or her descendants might get is a
matter of judgment as to what is a fair return. In civilized society this judgment is corporate
and established by law, though legitimately subject to change.
Laws do change, but the Christian is obligated to abide by the law as it stands, and
copyright law is an honest effort to protect people from violations of the eighth
commandment, “You shall not steal.”
Time theft. Finally, it is possible, at least in the Western world, to steal time. Employees
who come late or fritter away time on the job are not, technically, stealing time, but the
benefit contracted for and due their employer. But to carelessly or deliberately keep a person
waiting for an appointment is believed by most people in Protestant-influenced nations to be
a form of stealing. “Time is money,” we say, and to steal my time is to steal my money. This
would apply equally to the teacher who is careless about the time of students or the physician
the time of clients, just as much as to the guest who holds up a dinner party.
But people in other cultures do not always share this view. In Latin and Eastern lands, for
example, people are said to be event-oriented rather than time-oriented. People are not
expected to be “on time” in starting or closing a meeting or engagement, nor even in getting
the bus to the terminal on schedule. In such a culture, is tardiness an ethical matter? Or,
instructed by others who are more casual about life, should Americans stop being so “hyper”
about promptness?
The question of time theft in non-Western settings is still relevant. Does a person attend
to her obligations? Would she behave differently if her boss were present? On the other hand,
taking more time for certain partnerships or relationships may be more important in non-
Western settings than some Western ones. For example, prospective business partners eating
a meal together in such a setting can help build trust in a personal context. In such settings,
the less-personal conference call, though more time-efficient, may be inadequate for
establishing a trusting business partnership.
Ownership culturally defined. If it is accepted that stealing is taking from another that
which one has no biblical or moral grounds for taking, the precise boundaries of what is
“private property” and what is “one’s right to take” may be somewhat conditioned by the
views of a particular society. In ancient Israel it was permissible for the poor or the sojourner
to glean the leftovers of the harvest but wrong for the owner to harvest the entire crop. But in
many societies this “gleaning” would be viewed as stealing. In America one certainly does
not “glean” in Wal-Mart or Target after a major sale! When people groups following two
different definitions of “ownership” meet, there can be a clash. To Native Americans who did
not recognize private land ownership, white people, coming with a different set of rules,
were the ultimate thieves.
In the ancient world, forgery was always wrong. However, writers felt free to “borrow”
from others as something of a compliment to the previous authors, even if they did not
acknowledge them by name. We see this in Scripture. Psalm 70reuses and expands on Psalm
40:14-16, and Psalm 14 is only slightly revised as Psalm 53. Ancient writings also had their
version of “ghost writers”; that is, authors used collaborators without necessarily mentioning
their names (e.g., Josephus referred to his “helpers”). Paul used a good portion of similar
material in both Colossians and Ephesians. James in his epistle utilizes much material from
the Sermon on the Mount without sensing the need to acknowledge the original source! No
one in the ancient world would accuse Paul or James of forgery. And it is likely that Paul not
only had secretaries write for him, but in at least six letters he lists another person in the
“sender” or “author” position (e.g., Timothy is in the opening of 2 Corinthians 1:1, but not in
Romans, although he is present and sends greetings in Romans 16:21). In both scenarios,
Paul would have had the final sign-off.[43]
These cultural differences do not necessarily undermine the commandment not to steal,
for all societies recognize the right of personal ownership and consider robbery a crime. This
understanding does not relativize biblical standards because the difference is not in the
definition of stealing, but in the definition of ownership, and when taking what by whom is
considered legitimate. Along the borders of definition of personal ownership there is some
latitude for a society to establish its own norms, and it is wrong for Christians in that society,
even if they are citizens of another society, to violate those norms. Whether the violation is
inherently sinful or simply sinful by being declared illegal or unacceptable, the Christian
should prove blameless.
Perhaps the question of stealing time falls in this category. If the person who loses time is
offended, that is, considers it an unwarranted personal loss, then the sensitive Christian
should not carelessly or deliberately “take that which is another’s,” for the Scripture gives
him no right to do so.
Stealing and lying are often intertwined and feed one another. Furthermore, they have a
single underlying principle: they violate integrity. So we turn now to the question of
deception.
Further Reading
Beisner, E. Calvin. Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the
Environmental Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Acton Institute, 1997.
Blomberg, Craig L. Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000.
Cornwall Alliance website on creation care: www.cornwallalliance.org.
Ellul, Jacques. Money and Power. Translated by LaVonne Neff. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf
and Stock, 2009.
Gay, Craig M. Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Gay, Craig M. With Liberty and Justice for Whom? The Recent Evangelical Debate over
Capitalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Gay, Craig M. The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It’s Tempting to Live As If God
Doesn’t Exist. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Neuhaus, Richard John. Doing Well and Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian
Capitalist. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
Richards, Jay W. Money, Greed, and God. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
Soto, Hernando de. The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World. Reprint,
New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society, rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2012.
28Truth and Deception
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Perjury and Lying
The ninth commandment focuses on perjury, deliberately making a false statement in a
court of law. Perjury is especially serious since it threatens the integrity of the courts by
which justice is secured for a people. Yet, as in each of the Ten Commandments, there is a
deeper implication. “Do not lie to one another” (Col 3:9; cf. Lev 19:11) is a pervasive
command in Scripture, and the law itself links perjury with all varieties of lying: dealing
falsely, gossip, breaking contract, and, above all, swearing falsely in God’s name (Lev 19:11-
12, 16). Keeping one’s lips from speaking what is false and being without guile is taught in
both Testaments (Ps 34:13; Mk 7:22; Eph 4:22; 1 Pet 3:10). Lying or falsehood of all
varieties is a major theme in the Proverbs and the Psalms (Ps 119:163). God himself hates
lying, and he gives visible demonstration of this with Achan (Josh 7) and with Ananias and
Sapphira (Acts 5), who paid with their lives. God hates lying so much that it will be utterly
excluded from the new creation (Rev 21:27), and indeed all liars will have a part in the lake
of fire (Rev 21:8).
What is a lie? “To say words that do not conform to reality” is not a useful definition. We
may constantly say things that do not conform to reality—a person writing a novel or a
parent reading a fairy tale to her child—but this is not by itself a lie. We may err, but lies
are intentional. So, is a lie simply deliberately speaking words that do not conform to
reality? No, since once can deceive without using false words—or without using any words
at all. Lying is a violation of the truth that includes a conscious intent to deceive.
The Nature of Deception
Why is lying a problem? It denies the character of God who is truth ( Heb 6:18) and
whose word embodies truth (Jn 17:17). Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth” (Jn 14:6)—there is
nothing false in him. The Comforter is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17). The triune God
is utterly reliable, the source of both rationality itself as well as science, which is based on
the existence of a coherent, predictable universe that can be studied and understood.
Deception, then, engages in reality denial, a deliberate twisting of the way things are—
particularly in relation to God, the ultimate reality: we say “Yes” to God’s “No” and “No” to
God’s “Yes.”
The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer gives an example of this twisting of reality:
a child may be embarrassed or ashamed about issues at home, such as his father’s
alcoholism. A prying teacher asks him in front of the class whether his father often comes
home drunk. The child doesn’t know how to handle this conflict and so, doing the best he
can, denies it. The teacher, however, is in the wrong, and the child has an obligation to keep
certain things within the family: “The family has its own secret and must preserve it.” Even
though the child denies the situation, Bonhoeffer says, he bears more truth than if he had
betrayed his father’s weakness.[1]
Because we live in a fd allen, sinful world, some secrecy and hiding are necessary. After
all, God gave Adam and Eve clothing to wear! To humiliate (“You’re ugly”) or to betray
someone is not justified in the name of “speaking one’s mind” or “being honest.” This is
actually a distortion of reality, which often requires silence about certain matters in order to
protect the innocent and vulnerable. Lying is more than an intentional discrepancy between
thought and speech. Bonhoeffer says that “the lie is the denial, the negation and the
conscious and deliberate destruction of the reality which is created by God and which
consists in God, no matter whether this purpose is achieved by speech or by silence.”[2]
Now, if God may be described as “the truth” or the Genuine One, Satan may be described
as the originator or “father of lies” (Jn 8:44), and he uses deceit to destroy. After all, to break
with reality—morally, spiritually, psychologically, relationally—is destructive. Lying
destroys oneself, one’s relationships and one’s connection to God.
One of the surest ways to destroy character is to engage in deception. Other sins and
sinful patterns can more readily be addressed than deception. Deception, however, leads us
away from reality so that the truth becomes increasingly elusive, which makes repentance
and reconciliation elusive as well. The matter of truth and falsehood is the person’s basic
fault line, jeopardizing the stability of the well-being of one’s character and relationships. A
person’s believability and integrity totters on deception, which holds all virtues hostage.
Not only does deceit quickly erode the character, it complicates problems rather than
solves them. Mark Twain rightly said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember
anything.” As Proverbs puts it, “Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his
mouth will be full of gravel” (Prov 20:17 RSV). Deceit fouls all relationships. Once a person
has deceived another and is known to have done so, it is difficult ever to restore full
confidence. One may attempt to counterbalance his lies with a greater number of truths, but it
doesn’t work that way. No amount of truth can quickly erase the indelible imprint of a lie, for
the person who has been deceived may rightly ask himself, “When will it happen again?”
Deceit is the ultimate destroyer of good relationships because good human relationships are
built on mutual confidence (Prov 22:1).
Varieties of Deception
Lying without words. An averted glance, a “cool” attitude, a show of outrage can all be
designed to mask the truth, to deceive by an expression, a demeanor or an act, with no
recourse to words at all. One can deceive by silence. When another is falsely accused in the
easy camaraderie of a gossipy circle of friends, is silence a less guilty offense against the
truth?
Lying with true words. One can deceive using true words. For example, a person may
quote another out of context and thus deceive as to the meaning of the original statement or
deceive by telling only part of the truth, as Abraham did concerning his wife.
A more contemporary example of deception with true words: In a 1984 meeting of
evangelical students from several seminaries, the speaker explained how the statements
attributed to Christ by the Gospel writers were not always his own statements but were added
later to make a point. Asked by the students if that approach would be accepted by people in
the pew, he replied: “You have to be very careful. For example, you can say, ‘The author in
Mark’s Gospel tells us that Jesus said . . . ’” In this way, the faith of the layperson is not
shaken, and the scholar speaking to these students has not affirmed, in words, either the
authorship of Mark or the authenticity of what was attributed to Jesus. But he has
deliberately deceived his hearers into thinking that he believes the same things his hearers
do. And the students are thus encouraged by an “evangelical” scholar to carry out pastoral
ministry in this manner.
Pretense and exaggeration. Pretending to have knowledge when one only thinks or feels
or guesses is deception. This temptation is especially strong for the recognized expert—the
teacher or physician, for example. After all, isn’t it slightly embarrassing not to know about
the latest groundbreaking book in your field?
Exaggeration is another form of lying that is a great temptation for Christian workers,
especially when the time comes to write prayer letters to their supporters. They may be
tempted to enhance their reputation by making results sound more glorious and spectacular
than they actually are.
Culture and lying. When I (Robertson) was working with my colleagues to achieve
accreditation for our Christian theological school in Japan, we were surely pursuing a good
end for God’s glory. But the professor in charge of the project constantly brought for my
signature documents that were not factual. Finally in exasperation he exclaimed, “A lie may
become the cross you must bear!” It fit well with the Japanese proverb “A lie also is a useful
thing.” When I still declined to sign, the professor gave up in disgust: “Your problem is that
you haven’t become accustomed to the Japanese way of doing things.” Was this a mere clash
of culture? Was God to be served best by deception in this cultural format? (I should add
a Japanese colleague who held this position.)
Unfortunately, these sorts of tactics happen in the West as well. We are aware of
evangelical leaders who have regularly engaged in strong-arming tactics, manipulation and
deception. Their actions include spreading rumors, pressuring persons to fire persons without
warrant, or even to take illegal actions—“for the glory of God,” of course!
Though the temptation is present in every culture, it also must be acknowledged that the
ethics of truth are complicated in crosscultural relationships. The Incas, who had capital
punishment for three crimes—murder, adultery and lying—were easy prey to the Spaniards,
who lied, again, “for the glory of God.” Crosscultural communication of the truth is
complicated by cultural differences, no doubt, but we are unaware of any biblical reason to
modify the basic understanding of truth outlined above. The Japanese professor and the
Spanish invaders were guilty of violating the truth. Indeed, Paul wrote to Titus in Crete that
God “cannot lie”—in contrast to Cretans who were denounced by their fellow Cretan
Epimenides, who said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Tit 1:2, 12).
Motivation: Self-interest. “For the glory of God” is not the primary reason people lie;
usually it is pure self-interest. At a men’s retreat a young businessman sought me (Robertson)
out. He and his wife had been deeply in debt when his father-in-law invited him to join the
family business. It seemed God’s own provision since his father-in-law had been a leader in a
strong evangelical church for more than a quarter century. But now his conscience was
troubling him. The only way a small business could survive in the American economic
jungle, he was told, was to keep two sets of books, one for public inspection by government
agents, and another set of true financial records at home. Was this all right? He was troubled,
but not ready to risk a stand for the truth. When I returned to the church some years later, he
and his father-in-law were still leaders in the same church and still in the same business, run
in the same way.
Hypocrisy. The mature form of deceit is evidenced by a life of deceit, commonly called
hypocrisy: seeking to appear something one is not. God hates hypocrisy, and of all
hypocrisies, religious hypocrisy is the worst. When a wicked person engages in religious
activity, it is not merely that God rejects such falsehood. God hates hypocrisy so intensely
that the religious activity itself, instead of improving the situation of the unrepentant sinner,
is actually an abomination to God. Far better to have had no religious activity at all (Prov
15:8; Amos 5:21-25).
The humble and gentle Jesus excoriated religious leaders of his day, who would “preach”
but “not practice” (Mt 23:3). We can easily see hypocrisy in the Pharisees. We can see it in
one correspondent who wrote in the old “Dear Abby” newspaper column that he was furious
because the “A” student he solicited for help on his exam fed him the wrong answers. But do
we see it in ourselves?
One international newspaper covered the story of a truck driver in Italy who routinely
visited brothels while he was on the road:
On one occasion an associate told him about the best brothel he had been to and whom he
should ask for to receive the best service. He decided to follow up on the recommendation
even though it was so close to home. When he arrived at the brothel he asked for the services
of that particular prostitute and awaited her arrival. To his utter shock and anger, when the
woman walked into the room he discovered she was his wife. He was enraged, realizing that
while he had been on the road his wife had been making a living through prostitution. Totally
out of control, he grabbed her and would have killed her had he not been restrained.[3]
We hate for our hypocrisies to be exposed, but coming to terms with our own deceptive
hearts (Jer 17:9)—before God and others—as we confess and repent is crucial to our
becoming conformed to Christ’s image.
Self-deception. Hypocrisy is an attempt to deceive others, but it often stems from or is
intertwined with a deeper malady: self-deception. We can be deceived about reality,
convincing ourselves that we are better or worse than we really are. Both are equally
dangerous and destructive. Lack of self-honesty can be profoundly damaging. Failures in
self-honesty are at the root of many emotional and mental disturbances.
A particularly virulent strain of self-deception is the contemporary notion of what it
means to be honest. A senior Bible student once came to me (Robertson) for counsel about an
earlier immoral relationship with an unconverted man. We seemed to be getting nowhere, so
I inquired: “Have you ever decided to finally break off all relations with him and have
nothing to do with him ever again?” Her response revealed clearly the new concept of what
integrity is: “That wouldn’t be honest, would it?”
Or what of a certain man who has what he considers an attractive wife who has stood by
him for thirty-five years and raised “five marvelous sons,” but is no longer as sexually
exciting to him as is a certain divorcée. What should he do? He concludes: “I have too much
character to live a lie any longer.”
As we have observed earlier, our feelings, which so often change, are not central to who
we are. What about virtuous character, abiding commitments, self-control, doing what is
right? Are all these negotiable if they go against feelings? To be honest to oneself means to
be honest to one’s whole self, to one’s commitments, to one’s sacred relationships, to God, to
what is right, to reason, as well as to one’s feelings. The most honest thing this man could do
would be to reject his desires and feelings and act with true integrity to his marriage vows.
Hypocrisy is despicable, self-deception is malignant, and if they are not dealt with, a
habitual liar may come to the place where he does not even recognize the truth. But are there
ever any biblically permissible exceptions to consider when it comes to deception?
Exceptions: When Deception Is Permissible
Incomplete truth. The command of God to tell the truth does not mean that a person must
tell all that she knows in every situation. A mother may not tell her small child everything
she knows in answer to the question, “Where do babies come from?” When we turn to
Scripture, we see that Christ did not tell his brothers all the truth concerning his intention to
go to Jerusalem; the time had not yet come for him to do so, though he would go up shortly
thereafter (Jn 7:8-10). God himself instructed Samuel, who was fearful of Saul’s wrath, to
say that he was going to Bethlehem to offer a sacrifice—even though the primary, and initial,
reason was to anoint a new king (1 Sam 16:1-5). Jeremiah deceived through a similar method
(Jer 38:24-27). In Christ there was no guile (1 Pet 2:22), and it is impossible for God to lie
(Heb 6:18). Yet God himself does not tell the whole truth (Deut 29:29). He tells us only that
portion of the truth which is necessary for our good.
We could say that God does allow people who suppress the truth to be reinforced in that
suppression. Paul writes that for those who refuse to love the truth, God sends a delusion on
them (2 Thess 2:11-12). In the same way, God had sent a deceiving spirit on false prophets
because they only prophesied the happy things that king Ahab wants to hear rather than the
truth (1 Kings 22).
As we have noted, one does not have to tell all he knows to speak the truth, but does this
mean that deliberate deception is ever approved in Scripture? Just as killing does not always
equal murder and taking by force does not always equal stealing, could it be said that
deception is not always sinful?
The lesser of two evils? Some claim that deception is always wrong, but that it may be
the lesser of two evils. For example, deceiving Nazis about the Jews you are hiding is wrong,
but not as wrong as telling the fateful truth about their whereabouts. So the doctrine of tragic
moral dilemma—the idea that we may sometimes need to sin by choosing the lesser of two
unacceptable choices—is embraced by various Christians. The Christian who chooses the
lesser of two evils is still guilty, regardless of motives, since the Bible allows no exceptions
for deception—although the prohibition against killing, say, does permit exceptions for
justified war or capital punishment.
Are there in fact no biblical exceptions to the law against deception? Before examining
the biblical texts, we note two important facts. The basic sin is deception, not merely the
deliberate verbal expression of falsehood. Words can be in conformity to facts and still be
designed to deceive. Words can be apparently out of conformity with the facts and be true.
My (Robertson’s) young son was to drop a letter in a mail slot for me and asked, “To
America or Japan?” Although the destination was in Tachikawa, Japan, I replied, “America.”
No amount of explaining would have conveyed the truth that an APO address had to go in
the “America” slot to reach a destination in Japan. I answered (truthfully) his question, not
his words. I did not deceive him.
The other ground rule we follow is to recognize that Scripture must be our guide, and
that cuts both ways. If Scripture truly prohibits any exceptions, then we must allow none, no
matter how poignant the circumstances. But if Scripture justifies exceptions to any law or
principle, then we must not try to be “more spiritual” than Scripture.
Our contention is that the Bible does justify deception in three categories:
inconsequential social arrangements, war and opposition to criminal activity. If these
exceptions are valid biblically, then to deceive in these circumstances in any way, including
verbally, is no evil to be confessed, but legitimate moral behavior. That is, our duties should
be understood in terms of a hierarchy or an ordering of obligations. If two come into conflict
—say, our duty to love God and our duty to love family—we must choose the higher.
Likewise, as we note below, when we must choose between saving life and telling the truth,
we save a life.
Inconsequential social arrangements. When Christ acted as if he would go on, but did
not intend to (Lk 24:28-29), he was displaying modesty, not forcing his presence on his two
friends but giving them opportunity to freely invite him in.[4] Jesus instructed his disciples to
use a little “makeup,” so as not to appear as if they had been fasting (Mt 6:17-18); he
apparently did not consider this sinful deception. Though the Bible does not tell jokes as such
or instruct in ancient games, these would seem to fall in the same category of mutually
agreed-on social arrangements. The unexpected ending is what makes a joke funny; so the
more the audience is led astray (deceived), the better the punch line. The better his ability to
deceive, the better the quarterback, chess player or actor in a play.
Many of our greetings and social expressions are of this nature. Those who lay heavy
burdens of explicit veracity on casual social exchange do not help the cause of truth. One
should adapt even common salutations to conform as much as possible with reality. When
the other person asks, “How are you?” unless he stops and makes a point of it, no one really
thinks he wants a clinical description of body or psyche. We might be more comfortable with
a response of “Learning and growing” or “I’m sure I’ll survive,” and while these might
contain slight content, they are no more moral than the more common and meaningless
response, “Fine” or “Doing okay.” To impose on humor, games or casual social greetings the
requirements of the ninth commandment is not to serve the cause of truth; actually it
trivializes the weighty demands of biblical integrity.
If the biblical evidence for legitimate deception in inconsequential social arrangements is
not abundant, either for or against (possibly for the very reason that it is inconsequential),
this lack cannot be alleged against the case for deception in war.
Deception in war. War by its very nature is waged with an array of available weapons,
including psychology and deception. God himself wages war this way. He not only told
Joshua to set an ambush (Josh 8:2), a very deadly deception, but he himself set an ambush on
at least one occasion (2 Chron 20:22). Elisha and God worked together on a project in which
the prophet told the enemy troops, “This is not the way and this is not the city,” when in fact
it was the city. In addition, God instructed Moses to send spies—the quintessential form of
deception—into the land of Canaan (Num 13:2). Likewise, two Israelite spies went to
Jericho, where Rahab, in spy-thriller fashion, hid the spies and deceived the home troops
(Josh 6:2-6). For this act she was commended and rewarded by God (Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).
Some have argued that Rahab was commended for her faith, not for her deceptive
activity. Apart from the fact that all three of the relevant passages say explicitly that it
was because of what she did that she was commended (Jas 2:25), how is it possible so to
divorce faith and works? A dangerous theological notion with unending potential for
mischief is introduced if one may deliberately do a sinful act for a good cause and be
rewarded for her faith. If a person sins, should she not be reprimanded rather than rewarded
—especially when the act is designed to save her own skin? No, Rahab acted in the faith that
the God who was with Israel was mightier than the gods of Jericho, and she did the right
thing—she sided with God’s people and deceived through actions and words in what may
properly be called an act of war. Others have argued that the hiding of the spies was
acceptable but that she sinned when she spoke untrue words. But this is an inadmissible
definition of the sin of deception and opens the door to all kinds of theological vagaries in
which words are sacrosanct but actions are not.
If there can be just wars, as we have argued in chapter twenty-four (“War and Peace”),
then ambushes, camouflage, spying, deceptive strategy and communicating in code, as
integral parts of such wars, are also legitimate.
Deception in opposing criminals. Deception is apparently one form of resistance that,
like physical resistance, is ordinarily wrong, but not wrong in resisting a criminal or an
enemy in war.
Consider the classic question: “Are you morally obligated to tell the Gestapo at the door
that you are harboring Jews in your cellar?” We answer, “No.” Sophie Scholl, a committed
Christian and university student was an active participant in “The White Rose”—a German
resistance movement during World War II.[5] She and her friends devoted their lives to
exposing the Nazis’ propaganda and lies by quietly publicizing the truth to her fellow
Germans. When she, along with her brother, was caught (February 18, 1943) and
interrogated, she sought to deceive her interrogators to protect her innocent comrades-in-
arms. But when she was found out, she nevertheless refused to say anything that might
endanger her friends—and she did right. In Scripture, we see the Hebrew midwives resisting
an ungodly and oppressive regime by civil disobedience and the use of deception. The result?
“God dealt well with the midwives” (Ex 1:15-21 RSV). How can it be said that their faith
was good and their subversive activity bad? Or how can it be said that their disobedience was
good and their deception bad? The Bible does not make such distinctions. It just says that
God approved and rewarded.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted that if an axe-murderer is running after someone
and he asks you where the threatened person went, you are to tell the would-be murderer the
truth if you know it. If the criminal then finds him and kills him, the criminal would be to
blame, not you. Kant thought that if deception was wrong because, if universalized, then
what would be the point of lying? We would insist that certain contexts such as criminal
activity—not just any activity—allow for deception.
And as we noted above, God himself suggested deception, if necessary (1 Sam 16:1-5).
God had told Samuel to anoint a king, and Samuel replied that if the jealous, ruthless and
irrational king Saul heard of it, he would kill Samuel. God gave this advice to him: “Take a
heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD’” (1 Sam 16:2). God urged
Samuel to deceive anyone who asked. Because Saul was a standing threat to the innocent
lives, he had forfeited the right to full or even partial disclosure of what Samuel was doing.
King Ahab’s own steward Obadiah, who “feared the LORD greatly,” acted deceptively by
hiding a hundred prophets in caves because their lives were under threat by queen Jezebel (1
Kings 18:3-4).
How about in our own situation? If a homeowner, away on a trip, leaves a timer on her
light system to deceive potential robbers into thinking that she is home, surely she does not
sin. Deceptive police activity is a good thing when needed to apprehend a criminal—for
example, sting operations to break up drug or prostitution rings. When a robber demands
entrance to a home, or access to possessions or people within, and he can be deflected by
deception (with true words or false words), the deceiver has not chosen the lesser of two
evils, but has done right.
Note that we are not justifying these deceptions on the grounds of situationism (that acts
are right or wrong based solely on the situation), deciding for ourselves which course of
action is the more loving for the most people. Nor are we saying that both courses of action
are sinful and that one must sometimes make a tragic moral choice (and choosing to lie over
letting another be murdered, for example). No, we are saying that deception is sinful, except
those situations in which Scripture itself permits or advocates deception—and which are also
very much in keeping with reason: inconsequential social arrangements, war and criminal
resistance. In the instances cited, God himself either took the deceptive action, commanded
it, or is said to have approved of those who did.
We must think holistically about moral acts. Not only can acts themselves be right or
wrong (e.g., the act of rape or baby torture is always wrong); motives can render an act good
or evil. For example, two acts can be identical, but the motives may differ. Furthermore,
the character of a person is the fountain from which virtuous (or vicious) actions flow. And
the Scriptures cite examples of God-fearing persons whose lives are marked by integrity, out
of which comes an occasional deception to protect innocent life. Deception does not
characterize their lives, but evil persons can undermine the proper place for truth-telling. In
the astute words of Glen Stassen and David Gushee, “Those . . . who are threatened and
oppressed may be permitted in times of moral emergency to suspend truthtelling temporarily
in some contexts in order to honor central covenant obligations—and to work clandestinely,
if necessary, for a just and peaceful public square in which truth may be freely spoken once
again.”[6]
One does not make exception to Scripture’s commands or prohibitions on the basis of
what may appear merely “loving” or “reasonable.” If exceptions are made, we should be
guided by Scripture itself, which serves as a safeguard against rationalization and corruption
of character. We have already seen that the command to honor parents has exceptions (e.g.,
when it conflicts with allegiance to Christ) as does the command not to commit adultery
(e.g., if one is raped). And when we come to exceptions concerning deception, we have more
abundant evidence furnished by Scripture.
A further consideration: we have seen that when it comes to truth-telling and deception,
we must not only consider the act itself, but the character, motive and context (such as
warfare or criminal activity) involved. In defending deception in certain circumstances, this
is no justification for lying when you’ve gotten yourself into trouble. The adulterer who
thinks he is preserving his marriage by not telling his wife of his betrayal is misguided. As
Lewis Smedes points out: “[This] would turn adultery itself into its own justification for
lying. Since adultery always threatens to destroy a marriage, lying about it is almost always
required to save the marriage. So the offense itself guarantees the ‘right to lie.’ The irony is
too great.”[7]
We recognize that the permissibility of deception is a debated topic, and that godly, fair-
minded believers disagree. But let us return to the main burden of this chapter—that God is
the ultimate reality around whom all else holds together. To depart from the truth and to live
according to a self-distorted reality destroys our own personal integrity and our relationships
and leads to death now and in the hereafter. But we find abundant life and true integrity or
wholeness by orienting our lives around the reality of the triune God. This is the beginning of
wisdom.
Further Reading
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics, trans. Neville Horton Smith. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Copan, Paul. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2008. Chapter 3.
Griffiths, Paul J. Lying: An Augustinian Theology of Duplicity. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004.
PART XChristians and Society
We have examined a wide range of ethical considerations, using the structure of the Ten
Commandments to guide us. At this point, we come to some themes that are less clear in
Scripture and can be quite controversial—the Christian and society, matters of conscience,
and personal guidance.
In part ten, we will discuss questions about the church (a divine institution) and its
relationship to the state (also divinely instituted): What responsibility do individual
Christians and the church have beyond modeling and teaching ethical behavior? What
biblical justification is there for having a voice in the public square and influencing society?
Are there biblical principles to guide us through the complexities of private and public,
church and state? How should Christians think about and engage with institutions within
society, such as educational structures and the media?
29Church and State
Throughout the history of the church, people have debated the question of whether it is
legitimate to work toward Christianizing society. During the Reagan era the debate heated up
again. Some decried “politicizing religion” or “religionizing politics.” Others wedded church
and state with enthusiasm. But how should we approach the relationship of church and state?
If we are citizens of God’s kingdom, are expressions of patriotism wrong? Should we have
the American flag and the Christian flag in the front of our churches, or does this send mixed
messages about the nature of the gospel? And can we actually neatly separate the church or
religion from the state or the secular?
Aristotle said that human beings are political animals. And whatever our position about
the Christian’s place in society, we cannot be neutral about the issue. Whether we believe we
should withdraw to form our own separate subcultures (as the Amish) or to be actively
involved to influence the political climate, we will take a stance. To assume we are not
“taking a position” is itself a particular position, presumably held for a particular reason. If
we pursue political engagement, what stance should the Christian take on a range of issues?
These include “reproductive rights,” race, redistribution of wealth, a guaranteed livelihood
and arms control (issues typically advocated by “liberals” or “progressives”) as well as the
rights of the unborn, law and order, pornography, the traditional family, a healthy defense
budget, or human rights in China or in Muslim countries (typically “conservative” issues).
Biblical Context
Two texts. Before we talk about the role of government and church and state matters, we
should go back to the Sermon on the Mount, which has relevance here—
particularly Matthew 7:6-11:
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will
trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. Ask, and it will be given to
you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks
receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is
there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a
fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to
those who ask Him!
For a long time, biblical scholars were not quite sure how this text fit with the rest of the
Sermon on the Mount. When we looked at life issues, we noted the theme of “transforming
initiatives” in the Sermon on the Mount—that Jesus calls his disciples to break out of vicious
cycles that lead to a dead-end lifestyle and to embrace kingdom values that move toward
reconciled relationships and cultivating life-giving patterns.
This helps shed light on this passage as it relates to the Christian disciple and
government.[1] In early rabbinic literature, “pigs” and “dogs” were “Gentiles”; in Jesus’ day,
Jews would have thought of Rome when they heard these terms. While Jewish zealots in
Jesus’ day opposed Rome as the root of Israel’s problems, the opposite idolatrous temptation
existed—namely, placing trust and hope in Rome for political and economic security. To
idolize earthly governments, however, is a vicious cycle, a dead-end path that leads to
disappointment and even betrayal—just like “pigs” trample pearls (which look like grain)
and “dogs” tear you apart. It’s something like Winston Churchill’s definition of an
“appeaser”—“one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
What is Jesus’ alternative to idolizing government? He said earlier that we should seek
first God’s kingdom (Mt 6:33)—to trust and seek our heavenly Father, who has our best
interests in mind; he will not turn against us (see table 29.1).
Table 29.1. Transforming Initiative from Matthew 7:6-12
Traditional Righteousness
Vicious Cycle
Transforming Initiative
Do not give holy things to dogs,
or pearls to pigs (Mt 7:6-12).
They will trample
them and tear you to
pieces.
Give your trust in prayer to
your Father in Heaven.
An additional text to consider is Matthew 22:17-22. Religious leaders were testing Jesus
with a question about paying taxes. Would Jesus say “yes” to Caesar and “no” to God—or
vice versa? Jesus requested a coin be brought to him, and he asked, “Whose likeness [ eikōn]
and inscription is this?” The reply was, “Caesar’s.” Jesus then told his questioners to give to
Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Jesus was not talking about some implied
“church-state” separation here, which was a foreign concept in the days of the Roman
Empire; Jesus wasn’t saying, “Caesar gets his share and God gets his.” Harking back
to Genesis 1, Jesus appears to be saying that, yes, coins bear the image of Caesar and taxes
should be paid to him. But all humans—including Caesar!—are made in
the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27), and everything we have belongs to God the
Creator. He is master over Caesar and over our money, including tax money.
Scripture, idolatry and “returning to Christian America.” We hear in the Matthew 7 text
a rebuke to those who want to clutch whatever remains of our past “Christian consensus” and
press for a “return to Christian America.” This kind of language could sound threatening to
Americans who are not Christians. For one thing, various American founders such as
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, though sympathetic to the influence of biblical religion,
were Deists, not Christians. And in America’s early history, the Protestant majority of
Puritans, Congregationalists and Presbyterians opposed and oppressed Quakers such as Mary
Dyer, Baptists such as Roger Williams, and Roman Catholics.
Many American Christians will invoke 2 Chronicles 7:14 on the National Day of Prayer:
“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves . . .” (NIV). But who are
God’s people? The American nation? Or is it the church in America? Often Christians blur
these lines between God’s people and the American nation, suggesting the doctrine known as
“Manifest Destiny.” As the Puritans intended it, America was to carry forward the
Reformation in its pure form, being a “city set on a hill.”
What should we make of the language of “returning to Christian America”? Is it
idolatrous? Not necessarily. Culturally speaking, the Christian faith has been the source of
many benefits that have come to Western civilization—human rights, women’s rights,
abolition of slavery, democracy, modern science. These are hard-fought benefits that that
have contributed to human well-being, and they should be preserved and defended. However,
if we are referring to Christian government or Christian civil religion, this can sound
intimidating to the non-Christian citizen—and it can be idolatrous. Christians should be
careful here: America is not a theocracy like ancient Israel, and Christ’s kingdom is “not of
this world” (Jn 18:36). Even though Paul regularly appealed to his Roman citizenship, as we
note below, he also wrote that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20). Peter reminds
believers that they are “aliens and strangers” (1 Pet 2:11-12).
This “nostalgia for the lost empire” is idolatrous because of its desire for and reliance on
majority status. While Christians are to have an influence as salt and light in society (Mt
5:13-16), they may be in grave danger of idolatry by putting trust in the horses and chariots
of majoritarianism rather than in God himself. As John Seel writes, this majoritarianism is
actually coercive and insensitive to political and theological differences; it is “blind to such
principles as the common good and minority rights, which balances the bare expression of
the will of the majority.”[2] American Christians must recognize their first duty is to love God
and others, whether they have political power or not, and to be salt and light in a rotting and
darkened world.
This is not to say that Christians shouldn’t influence society and the shaping of its laws
for the common good. In fact, Western history bears the stamp of Christian influence.
The Stream of History
For the first three centuries of its existence the church proclaimed the gospel and was
heavily involved in social concerns—but without the government’s blessing. In fact,
Christians were often excluded from public life through social pressure and lived under
intense persecution. Nevertheless, they were widely recognized for almsgiving (even the
poor gave generously through frugality [“stinting”] and fasting), support of widows and
orphans (pagan emperor Julian said, “These godless Galileans feed not only their own poor
but ours”), care for the sick and disabled (establishing the first hospitals in the fourth
century), care for prisoners and slaves (some Christians sold themselves into bondage to buy
the freedom of others), providing work for the unemployed, caring for those suffering
calamity (in times of plague only Christians continued to care for the dying) and providing
hospitality to those on journeys.
The second-century Epistle to Diognetus describes the attractive moral example set by
the Christian community in the Mediterranean world. It stands as a rebuke to many morally
compromised Western churches and denominations today. The letter observes how these
Christians were not distinct in their dress, food or speech, but they “display to us their
wonderful and confessedly striking method of life”:
They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all
things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as
their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all
[others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common
table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They
pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and
at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all.
They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor,
yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored,
and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evilly spoken of, and yet are justified;
they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good,
yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life.[3]
With the ascent of Emperor Constantine (312), the Christian outcast minority would
become part of “the establishment.” Though various critics have spoken ill of Constantine,
we should not diminish his historical significance and the blessing he was to many
Christians. Surely Constantine’s rule was a massive relief to a once persecuted minority.
After all, believers have a duty to pray for rulers, allowing them to lead peaceable and quiet
lives—instead of being harassed and persecuted (1 Tim 2:1-4; cf. Rev 6:10). These believers
were rightly grateful for a ruler who kept Romans from killing Christians! Jesus himself
came to deliver people from all manner of oppression and bondage (Lk 4:18-19). And we
should remember that political or cultural power is not inherently evil (Rom 13).
Christians under Constantine began to wrestle with what it meant to have “dual
citizenship” in a heavenly kingdom and an earthly one. This was a totally new experiment.
Paganism was waning, and Christians were trying to fill the vacuum and figure out how to
run things. What’s more, Constantine was not an oppressor of pagans. And he actually
brought about many positive moral reforms—banning the gladiatorial games and the
exposure of children as well as preventing men and women from being put into the same
prison cells, for instance. He also encouraged charitable ministries that benefited everyone,
not just Christians. This isn’t to say that the church wouldn’t make grievous mistakes with
the power that it had (e.g., the Inquisition).
Constantine has been painted with a black brush by thinkers such as John Howard Yoder
(who adopts an Anabaptist perspective). He refers to the “heresy” of Constantinianism—a
term referring to the church’s taking a dominant cultural place in the Roman Empire.
Allegedly, the church fell from its “pristine” existence as a dynamic, though politically
disempowered, community. It capitulated and compromised as it came to operate according
to the idolatrous machinery of political power, including Christian involvement in the
military. Although we can’t explore Yoder’s argument here (though we addressed some of
Yoder’s concerns in chapter twenty-four), his reference to the church’s “Constantinian shift”
is highly questionable; it is historically flawed and theologically inaccurate. For example, as
we saw in our discussion of warfare, the New Testament speaks quite positively of Roman
centurions, and Christians were involved in the military in some capacity up to the time of
Constantine, not simply after he came to power.[4]
Eventually, the state would come to control the church, but over the centuries the church
came to control—or at least to excessively manipulate—the state. For example, Pope
Gregory VII (reigned 1073–1085) asserted: “The pope alone may use the imperial insignia;
all princes should kiss his feet and his alone; he may depose emperors; he may absolve the
subjects of wicked rulers from their allegiance.” An additional problem to a history of popes
who called for the allegiance of secular rulers in Europe, many of these religious leaders led
scandalous lives and proved that power does tend to corrupt. The marriage of a corrupted
church and state, in what came to be called “state churches,” inspired the outrage against
them both in the French Revolution (1789) and the reign of terror. The French Enlightenment
figure Denis Diderot captured this animosity succinctly: “I should like to see, and this will be
the last and most ardent of my desires, I should like to see the last king strangled with
the guts of the last priest.”
With the Reformers came the belief in the separation of civil and religious government—
although John Calvin in Geneva and John Knox (c. 1505–1572) in Scotland saw a blurring of
these powers. Calvin permitted the execution of the heretic Michael Servetus, and John Knox
influenced the Scottish Parliament to declare Scotland Protestant and to approve the Scots
Confession in 1560. The Anabaptists went even further, insisting that civil government was
only for non-Christians and that Christians should remain outside these worldly systems.
This position is maintained today by some of their spiritual descendants, such as the Amish
and some Mennonites. It influences others strongly, so that Baptists of all varieties strongly
emphasize the separation of church and state.
Perhaps one point of clarification here about post-Reformation “religious wars” of
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe: The Enlightenment (1650–1800), particularly in
France, opposed the dominance of the “state church.” Prior to the rise of modernity in the
West, church and state had been bound together. Indeed, as we observe below, we cannot
tidily separate “religion” and “politics” or the “sacred” and the “secular.” It was the
Enlightenment that helped create a sacred-secular dichotomy, and secularists often lay claim
to the influence of the “rational, tolerant Enlightenment” that stood in opposition to Europe’s
religious wars during the post-Reformation era. As William Cavanaugh points out,
the church’s political power came to be replaced by the state’s political power, and the
twentieth century showed that state power can be just as—or even more—tyrannical.
Cavanaugh says that the “religious wars” were very much an exercise of European state
building. In fact, the boundaries of these alleged religious wars were drawn primarily
along political lines rather than those of sectarian affiliation.[5]
Nevertheless, the dominant Protestant Reformation teaching was not for separation
of influence, but for separation of the powers of each so that neither controlled the other.
Church and state were viewed as partners in separate but overlapping spheres of
responsibility for achieving God’s purposes in the world. During the eighteenth century,
England was ripe for spiritual revival and eventually social transformation through the
preaching of George Whitefield and John Wesley. They brought their message to America’s
shores, which, in combination with Jonathan Edwards’s preaching, would help inspire
America’s first Great Awakening. This movement is often held up as a model of how
Christian people can change the course of government and national destiny. Indeed, in our
day, the Christian statesman Os Guinness makes the argument that the American church’s
awakening or revival is the only hope to reverse the country’s moral and spiritual decline.[6]
British politics between 1750 and 1850 was dominated by Anglican evangelicals, many
of whom came out of the Wesleyan revival. The “saints,” or “Clapham Sect,” met in the
home of Henry Thornton and hammered out the most formidable pressure group Britain has
ever seen. William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, Zachary Macaulay and
Lord Shaftesbury determined to cure their land’s moral evils. They brought about the
abolition of slavery, fought for humanization of factories and prisons and the relief of
debtors, and opposed all discrimination against minorities. Sunday was firmly established as
a day of rest, and the national lottery was abolished. Bearbaiting, bullbaiting and
cockfighting were stopped. Even profanity and adultery were legislated against.
How did they do it? They sought to mobilize every possible force. They used political
action.Some who were not authorities in certain fields made themselves authorities in order
to be effective. By 1815 half the peerage had given up their old amusements of the hunt and
ball and devoted themselves to setting up Bible study groups. They used money. Through the
fundraising efforts of the Clapham Sect, the African colony of Sierra Leone was founded in
1787 as a home for freed slaves and was privately sustained for twenty years. They
supported evangelism. The Clapham Sect, distressed that the giant East India Company
banned missionary activity in India, bought up stock and took over the entire directorate of
the company for the purpose of opening India to the gospel. They used boycott. Hannah
More, called “the high priestess of the Evangelical Revival,” persuaded “ladies of gentility”
to abstain from using West Indies sugar in their tea as part of the overall antislavery
campaign. In fact, the evangelicals’ greatest weapon was the influencing of public
opinion. They held public campaigns that succeeded in reversing the value system of an
entire people in less than a generation.[7]
Church and State in America
The colonies in North America fell heir to the Protestant heritage of England and
Scotland. The country’s founders were concerned about the separation of powers—that
neither should dominate or control the other. They expressed two fundamental, but
competing, concerns: first, that government should not sponsor religion, and second, that
government should not impede its expression: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment
states.
A certain irony exists in Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and
state” language from an 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptists; this letter concerned the fact that
all non-Congregationalists in Connecticut had to pay an assessment tax. But apart from that,
complete religious freedom existed for these churches, and the Danbury Baptists themselves
thought it a good idea that the government should accommodate and encourage religious
structures—hardly a compartmentalized separation![8] Jefferson’s intent was to assure this
religious group that they were not excluded from having a rightful place in the public square.
Since Supreme Court justice Hugo Black appealed to the “wall” argument in the 1940s,
secularists such as the Freedom from Religion Association have used this language to treat
the Christian faith—and other faiths—as a private practice that should have no influence
beyond the four walls of a church building. In such organizations we often witness a fanatical
desire to expunge from our nation’s history any reference to clear and strong religious
influences; this kind of censorship has been common in student textbooks, for example.[9] But
while some measure of church-state separation is healthy, it is bad practice to base such an
argument on a personal letter from Jefferson rather than on defining documents such as the
Declaration of Independence, the founders’ speeches and writings, and the various state
constitutions.
Jefferson himself, though a Deist, wrote the Declaration, in which he mentioned the
“Creator,” “the Supreme Judge,” “Divine Providence” and “Nature’s God.” He also affirmed
the theological grounding of God for human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“Life,” we understand, and “liberty” as well. But “the pursuit of happiness”? The
founders closely connected “happiness” and “liberty.” According to historian David
McCullough, the “pursuit of happiness” did not mean for the founders “long vacations or
material possessions or idleness or ease.” No, it meant the life of the mind and spirit, the
liberty to think for oneself, to engage in intellectual pursuits. For George Washington in
particular, “happiness derived both from learning and employing the benefits of learning to
further the welfare of others.”[10]
Furthermore, the founding fathers themselves (and their contemporaries) did not at all
view religion and government as absolutely compartmentalized. Far from it. Indeed, they
were emphatic about the importance of religion for public life. George Washington claimed
that “Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society.” In his farewell address
of 1796, he stated that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” And that “religion and morality are
indispensable supports” of the “dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.” In
1798, America’s second President, John Adams said something similar: “We have no
government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by
morality and religion,” adding that our Constitution “was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Further, God is
explicitly mentioned in the preambles of the states’ constitutions. Connecticut’s, for example,
mentions “the good providence of God,” and Massachusetts expresses gratitude for “the
goodness of the great Legislator of the universe.”
Clearly, an absolute church-state separation was never intended. For example, article
seven of the Constitution declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” J. Budziszewski,
professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin, gives us the
upshot of the Constitution on the church-state issue: government isn’t allowed to make
officeholders pass a religious test, establish a national church, or stop someone from freely
worshiping.[11]
While church and state are separate, faith is not to be separated from public life. If the
separation between church and state were absolute, there would be some silly consequences,
as the Supreme Court noted in 1947. Firefighters couldn’t put out burning church buildings
or religious schools, or if the president was injured, he couldn’t be admitted to a religious
hospital. Churches couldn’t be opened to the community in cases of emergency. Indeed, early
in our country’s history, religious services could be held in federal buildings, and church
buildings would often serve as town meeting houses.
The “wall argument” assumes that atheism or secular humanism is the default position.
But this is a full-fledged worldview or philosophy of life—complete with beliefs about
reality (metaphysics), ethics, knowledge (epistemology) and the purpose of life—just as the
Christian or Sikh faith is. It is not neutral in its beliefs. To say that God does not exist (which
atheism does) is to make a claim which stands in need of justification. To prefer an atheistic
worldview is not a neutral assertion. In fact, secular humanist societies have 501c3 tax-
exempt status just as churches do.
The clear intent of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from
creating a state church on the European model, which would have forced the individual states
to relinquish their respective established churches then in place. Many of the colonies had
state churches, but of different denominations. The founders did not oppose that, for those
churches continued in the new republic for some decades. But they did not look benevolently
on the potential power of a monolithic national church.
The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion—
that people should not be coerced by religion; and so the government may
not establish religion. Yet historically, government structures have encouraged the
flourishing of religion—from the Declaration of Independence and the preambles of state
constitutions to chaplains in the military, national days of prayer and prayer breakfasts, and
references to God in speeches. But people should be free to practice their religion—and so
the government should not interfere.
Whatever the attitude or intention toward “church” may have been, it is clear that the
prevailing consensus of a religiously based, biblical ethic was viewed as essential to the
success of the fledgling experiment in democracy. Thus a moral consensus dominated the
making and interpreting of the law well into the twentieth century. But the landscape has
been changing, both in America and in Western Europe.
In Western Europe, we are seeing tensions developing between traditional European
cultures and growing Islamic populations. Increasingly, Muslims have rejected these national
constitutions and laws by setting up their own parallel sharia courts, conducting their own
polygamous marriages (supported at taxpayer expense), practicing female circumcision and
wife-beating, and forcing women into marriages.[12] Relativistic multiculturalists are at a loss
about how to combat such assaults on human rights, and they are all the more timid because
of the volatility of many of these Muslim communities and the pressure—even intimidation
—they exert. Some European countries such as Belgium have penalties for “hate speech,”
which prohibit any criticism of Islam. For the major schools of Islam, there has been no
“mosque-state” separation, historically as well as today.
In America, the government early on seemed to favor the rights of religious people to
freely practice and promote their religion, whereas recently the courts, at least, have favored
the rights of citizens to be protected from religion. Church-state entanglement still exists, but
today it tends more toward inhibiting the church. Not only are churches increasingly denied
previously granted privileges, but the direction seems to be toward isolation of religion from
public space altogether—what Richard John Neuhaus called “the naked public square.”[13] In
the next chapter, we explore various arrangements and tensions on the church-state question.
Further Reading
Beckwith, Francis J. Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2010.
Budziszewski, J. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man. Reprint, Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock, 2010.
Guinness, Os. A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American
Future. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.
Metaxas, Eric. Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End
Slavery. New York: HarperOne, 2007.
Neuhaus, Richard John. The Naked Public Square, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. New York: Basic Books, 2012.
30Alternative Approaches to the Church-State
Relationship
It is possible to arrange the relationship between church and state in various ways: state
controls church; church controls state; church and state are assigned mutually exclusive
roles; or church and state have distinct spheres of responsibility but with mutual respect and
negotiated authority and influence.
In historic fact, no arrangement seems to have been “pure”; there has always been some
spillover in the outworking of whatever arrangement was officially prescribed. The Bible
gives no mandate but does give instruction on the purpose of the church and the purpose of
human government. So we conclude that the best arrangement is that which provides
maximum freedom for each to do best what it is designed to do. But discovering the ideal
arrangement is not easy. There seems to be only so much space in which social institutions
may operate. And as a result, when the authority (or freedom or “rights”) of one expands,
that of the other tends to contract. As the sphere of government control expands over the
lives of its people, for example, the freedom of other social institutions to speak or act with
independent authority diminishes. What are the various arrangements?
State Controls Church
When human government aims to control the religious life of the people, the result has
rarely been to the benefit of religious life. Likewise, when professing Christians become
authoritarian rulers and punish theological dissenters, as in the Inquisition, they bind the
freedom of conscience of others.
Church Dominates State
The church dominated the state for a few centuries in medieval Europe, and though a few
people advocate it today, it is not likely to happen in democratic lands of the twenty-first
century. In most Muslim countries, religious freedom is limited or nonexistent.[1] And all four
major schools of Islam endorse capital punishment for apostates from Islam.
As for the professed fears of secularists that Christian “fundamentalists” intend to impose
a rightist totalitarian regime with coercive moral requirements, this is not even a remote
possibility. Of course, no person or group of people in a modern pluralistic democracy should
impose its will on an unwilling majority—or even on a largely unwilling minority, for that
matter. Most politically conservative Christians (the Baptists in particular) come from a
tradition of rigid church-state separation. The Roman Catholic document Dignitatis
Humanae (1965) endorses religious liberty and gives guidelines for the church’s relation to
secular states, pluralistic states and officially Catholic states.
What about theonomy(“God’s law”)—the view advocated by a minority of Reformed,
postmillennial evangelicals such as Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen? This
view advocates a strong continuity between Old and New Testament, affirming that the law
given at Mt. Sinai is universal and thus should be the law of every nation. Theonomists
assume that since government is so important to human well-being, God would have made
clear what kind of government he wants. God does this in the Old Testament with the law of
Moses. A key passage they use is Matthew 5:17-20, where Jesus speaks of fulfilling rather
than abolishing the Law and the Prophets. Theonomists misread this passage (see our
discussion of “law” in part two), and they seem to collapse church and state—or at least
create confusion about their roles in the new covenant era. Indeed, the New Testament has
precious few passages on statecraft, and it certainly takes no pains to universalize the Mosaic
law for all nations. As we’ve seen, the Old Testament does not universalize the law of Moses
for all nations; rather, God holds these nations accountable for violating basic moral laws
(e.g., Amos 1–2). In fact, we regularly read that Christians are “not under law” (Rom 6:14-
15; Gal 4:21; 5:18). Furthermore, one could make the argument that health or economics is
“very important,” but the Bible does not lay out a specific economic system or medical
instructions. God does, however, give us what is sufficient for our salvation and Christian
living. Furthermore, God has given humans the capacity to utilize general revelation—
reason, creation, conscience and human experience—to discern how God’s world works and
how best we can get along in it (cf. Is 28:23-29).[2]
Even if the church or church people could control government, it would not be a good
thing. Religious totalitarianism is no better than secular totalitarianism, which is becoming
an increasing threat in the West. Inquisitions are not the exclusive domain of one particular
brand of religion. If Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and, given the recent trends
insisting on the unacceptability of church dominance in the affairs of state, should we
advocate for a position in which church and state have mutually exclusive roles—a totally
secular state in which religion is hermetically sealed off and totally private?
Church and State Assigned Mutually Exclusive Roles
Despite their worldview differences, both secularists of all varieties and certain Christians
would like to wall off from public life all religious influence. Should Christians
be isolated, focusing on the “spiritual” and “moral” dimensions—namely, evangelizing
unbelievers, strengthening believers and living morally exemplary lives? While we disagree
with this view, we acknowledge that if we were part of a small Christian minority in a
Muslim land, we might prefer absolute isolation of the majority “church” influence from the
political process. We would probably prefer a secular state if it were benevolently neutral
toward religion in general, as with Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew. But as we live in a
nation with strong Protestant roots, we cannot be certain what position we might espouse
under other circumstances. This inner tension highlights the impossibility of final resolution
on the entire issue of church-state relationships because God has not revealed the preferred
arrangement. Possibly he has not done so because there is no ideal arrangement for fallen
humankind.
In any event, some Christians are not the only ones who hold that church and state have
mutually exclusive roles. Many secularists are militant in this position, and their viewpoint
seems increasingly to prevail.
In a “secular state” the government and all political processes are kept separate from
religion and even from religious influence. This is a separation not known in the earlier days
of the republic in which government was favorable toward religion and open to religious
influence but was benevolently neutral toward any specific Christian denomination. Later
this neutrality came to include all religions. But the emerging “secular” state is no longer
merely nonreligious but increasingly irreligious and even antireligious.
We seem to be moving toward the awkward position that the government cannot support
values in the framework of any traditional religion (either Protestant, Catholic or Jewish), but
it will support them in a humanistic framework. Thus, the practical effect, as we have seen, is
to make humanism an established religion.[3]
Increasing numbers of the intellectual elite are espousing a “libertarian” view—the theory
that government has no business legislating any moral standards—including drug use and
prostitution—except to prevent a person from harming others. John Stuart Mill makes this
point in his book On Liberty(1859): “The sole end for which mankind is warranted
individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is
self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[4]
In this case, the government is made up of human beings whose values and ideals
determine the laws of that people. This sense of “what ought to be” comes from the entire
cultural milieu, but most of all from the religious convictions of the people. Indeed, the
word culture is connected to the word cult—the religious core that gives shape to a society.
Therefore, on the face of it, though the church and the state can be completely separated
organizationally so that the church is prohibited from doing anything officially in the public
domain, the so-called private religious (or irreligious) convictions of the people will still
determine the final outcome of the rules people live by.
Richard John Neuhaus argues this position persuasively in his highly influential
volume The Naked Public Square.A common assumption in American society is that religion
and religiously based morality are a private affair—something between the individual and
her God that has no business out in the public square. Public, checkable “facts” are distinct
from private, inscrutable “values.” However, history bears out the well-established point that
most Americans have derived their moral values and ideals from the biblical tradition, yet the
direction of our public life ignores this basic reality.[5] So the deinstitutionalizing of religious
truth claims “sounds like a fine and liberating thing, until we recognize that it really means
the reduction of all moral claims to individualistic passion. Then indeed every question of
value is dissolved into a question of power.”[6] This “new pluralism” prompts the argument
that “no normative ethic, even of the vaguest and most tentative sort, can be ‘imposed’ in our
public life. In practice this means that public policy decisions reflect a surrender of the
normal to the abnormal, of the dominant to the deviant.” So no wonder terms such
as abnormal or deviant “have been largely exorcised from polite vocabulary among the elites
in American life.”[7] Neuhaus continues by noting that teachers may freely espouse atheism
as well as every manner of sexual deviation, but if they should pray or even evangelize, they
are censured.[8]
Our efforts, then, in shutting up religion to the realm of the private life of citizens not
only have had bad results in relativizing the ethics of public life, but have begun to do the
same thing in a kind of moral sewage backflow into the private lives of our people. In the
end, our experiment seems to be proving that public policy and personal moral convictions
cannot be split. They can’t be split because each inevitably affects the other—whether the
composite religious convictions of the people influencing lawmaking, or the structure of
government in turn influencing the private behavior of citizens. To cite Tacitus again, “The
more corrupt the Republic, the more laws.” Since an integral relationship exists between
public and private, what arrangements best make that relationship productive of common
good? We hold that the following option is best.
Church and State Distinct but Mutually Influential
Church and state have distinct spheres of responsibility but will best discharge those
responsibilities with mutual respect and negotiated authority and influence. Before defending
this view, we should consider whether the example of Christ and the apostles implies
political non-involvement and refraining from influencing public policy.
The politics of Jesus’ day. Let’s look at the broader context. Being under foreign power,
Jews in Palestine believed they were still in exile even though they were in their own land.
In Ezra 9:8-9 (RSV), we read: “for we are bondmen.” The theme is present in Nehemiah
9:36 as well: “Here we are, slaves to this day—slaves in the land you gave to our ancestors to
enjoy its fruit and its good gifts” (NRSV).[9] The Jews of Jesus’ day took one of three paths:
1. Withdrawal: what the Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran community did in separating itself in
a remote desert community waiting for God to act
2. Compromise: what Herod and the Herodians did to get along with their political
bosses in Rome, hoping that God would somehow validate their approach
3. Revolt: what the zealots did in fighting against Rome, the evil empire[10]
Jesus enters the scene with a unique mission from his heavenly Father. He came to
establish the in-breaking kingdom of God. Jesus came with a mission—to overthrow Satan,
who was the real enemy, not Rome (Mt 12:26; Jn 12:31; 1 Jn 3:8). Another part of his
mission was to restore his temple, God’s new covenant people (Mal 3:1; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph
2:21; Rev 3:12), through his atoning work on the cross. Jesus was God’s specifically
appointed agent to reverse the curse of exile and to restore God’s exiles—both Jews and
Gentiles—into a new community he was establishing. The one true God had chosen Israel as
a means of bringing the salvation of the world (Gen 12:1-3), and now Jesus as the true,
faithful Israelite comes “in these last days” to fulfill the Abrahamic promise. He comes to
restore “all Israel” (Rom 9:6; 11:26)—which includes engrafted Gentiles—for the fulfillment
of this mission (Rom 11:16-24).[11]
What’s more, Jesus’ own claim to be “Lord,” “Son of God,” and “Savior”—titles used by
Caesar—had political implications: if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t. So Jesus’ authority is
far from apolitical, and the early Christians’ allegiance to Jesus as Lord would eventually
bring the wrath of Rome against them. God’s reign (“kingdom”) has broken into history in
the person and ministry of Jesus, who heals, proclaims good news to the poor, eats with
sinners, casts out demons. The kingdom is like a mustard seed that grows slowly, quietly, but
powerfully (Mk 4:26-29). Jesus’ call to repent and believe in the Messiah meant more than
giving up private sins. He also challenged all false, anti-kingdom agendas like such as
Israel’s nationalistic revolution represented by the temple establishment that had become a
hotbed of nationalistic fervor (Mk 11:17; cf. Jer 7:3-15) rather than a house of prayer and a
city set on the hill for all the Gentiles to see. The Israelite zealots and the temple system had
prevented Israel from being a light to the nations (Is 49:6).[12] Jesus’ mission and message
were emphatic: God’s kingdom isn’t nationalistic and Gentile-excluding, but invites all
peoples to become part of the new temple—the new people of God.
Jesus repudiated the three alternatives of his day. But what of his seeming apolitical
activity—eating with the marginalized, defying certain social taboos, healing the sick,
casting out demons? These actions still had a far-reaching impact on society in the Roman
Empire and throughout church history. Furthermore, Jesus had a unique mission, and so did
the apostles who had a special commission. This brings up an important point: just because
Jesus and the apostles did not do something (e.g., get involved in politics) is in itself not a
reason for Christ’s followers not to do it. Whether we are to follow their example in this
depends on the reasons for their abstinence. If those reasons apply today, we also should
refrain from involvement. If they do not apply, we are free to implement the truths of
Scripture in our contemporary situation as best as we can.
Key biblical considerations. In light of this, we should embrace several important
biblical considerations.
First, becoming reconciled with God and seeking first his kingdom takes priority over all
human relationships or this-worldly considerations. Although Jesus emphasized the
importance of love for one’s parents (Mk 7:9-13), he challenged the common understanding
of “family values,” placing a greater priority on brothers and sisters in Christ than on
biological family (Mt 12:46-50)—on seeking God’s kingdom above all other priorities (Mt
6:33).[13]And while reconciling one human to another or restoring peace are significant and
reflect the power of the gospel, such involvements do not have the ultimacy that reconciling
sinners to God does, along with becoming Christlike in character (Gal 4:19). In the words of
John Stott: “Is anything so destructive of human dignity as alienation from God through
ignorance or rejection of the gospel? And how can we seriously maintain that political and
economic liberation is just as important as eternal salvation?”[14]
Second, biblical virtues and universal Christian duties are more fundamental than
concrete, situation-specific considerations. Unlike much Old Testament legislation, biblical
virtues or duties apply in every culture, age and society. If specific action had been taught for
this or that situation, it might not apply in others. For example, the principles of justice and
love are major themes of Scripture; they apply in any generation in any society. Richard
Longenecker makes the point that the principles taught in the New Testament were
subversive to prevailing unjust social arrangements and ultimately brought them down.
When first-century Christians spoke of being “sons of God,” “baptized into Christ,” and
having “put on Christ” (Gal 3:26-27), they also spoke of their faith in terms of a new
relationship socially in which there is “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female” (3:28)—three pairings which cover in embryonic fashion
all the essential relationships of humanity.[15]
Third, redeemed humans offer hope that society can be changed, and they should not
place wholehearted trust in whoever has political power. Christ’s disciples are called to be
salt and light in society. Though this does not guarantee that the structures of society will
change for the better, such transformation of individuals and families becomes a possibility.
Fourth, Christ and Paul had specific vocations. Christ was sent to provide redemption
and not, at his first coming, to work out all the social implications of that redemption. Satan
tempted him to address the political issue first, but this would have subverted the mission. In
the same way, Paul had the specific commission to evangelize the Gentiles, not to reform the
Roman Empire. Christ did not evangelize throughout the Roman Empire, which would have
diverted him from fulfilling God’s redemptive plan. And Paul’s unique commission did not
include evangelizing China—nor ruling the Roman Empire. Those tasks would be assigned
other people in other times. But merely because these other roles were not theirs does not
mean they are illegitimate for others.
Fifth, the condition of state and church differed from today. Of course, there was no
“church-state separation” in the Roman Empire, nor was there opportunity to directly impact
the Roman government through voting, protests or marches. And even if the specific roles of
Jesus and Paul were not for political action, it is conceivable that others in the early church
might have participated in public life except for the fact that believers formed a very small
minority in a strong dictatorship. Successful political action had already proved impossible
through the various Jewish sects in Jesus’ time—alternatives Jesus deliberately rejected.
The apostle Paul did appeal to his Roman citizenship on several occasions—for example,
when he was wrongfully imprisoned in Philippi (Acts 16:35-38) and when his life was under
threat from the Jewish mobs and he was in Roman custody (Acts 22:25-29; 23:14-35). Doing
so helped ensure that the gospel could be proclaimed freely, that Paul’s right to due process
before the law was upheld, that his life could be protected from harm and death, and that he
could exert political leverage to correct injustices done to him. Should Christians today not
take seriously the benefits and protections of citizenship that Paul did?Indeed, our situation
in free nations is radically different today, though there is some overlap. In a democracy the
citizens are responsible for the affairs of state; to neglect this public responsibility would be
equivalent, in a lesser way, to the neglect of justice and mercy on the part of a Christian king
or government official.[16]
For these reasons, and perhaps others, most evangelicals have not accepted the New
Testament example of Jesus and the apostles as the mandated model for all Christians to
follow, but have concluded that both the Christian citizen and the church officially should
actively exercise a moral influence on public life.
Let us sketch out the broad parameters of a mutually influential relationship between
state and church. The state is responsible to protect all its citizens, by force if necessary, to
punish evildoers and to promote the common good (preserving peace and order). The church
also is responsible to promote the common good, not through a “state church” or by forming
a political party, but by commitment to evangelism, Christian virtue, biblical teaching,
benevolence and being good citizens. The church has a primary responsibility for the
behavior of its own members and only through its powers of persuasion for the behavior of
others.
Therefore the state (1) should not use its power to restrict the church from fulfilling its
mission and (2) should listen carefully to the voice of the church when it speaks to moral
issues. The church for its part (1) should not demand special privileges that encroach on the
rights of others and (2) should carefully refrain from compromising in order to secure
benefits from the state, or from idolizing the state by treating the prevailing culture as some
robust form of “civil religion.”
Indifference, imposition and persuasion. Christians have had a powerful influence in
bringing about much good in Western civilization. However, Christians can overreach by
attempting to create laws that the broader public does not agree to and is unwilling to abide
by—for example, the Prohibition (1919).
Christian theologian Miroslav Volf writes: “When it comes to the public role of religion,
the main fear is that of imposition—one faith imposing aspects of its own way of life on
others.”[17] He rightly warns against two extremes—totalitarianism (or imposition)
and idleness (or indifference). An extreme example of totalitarianism can be seen not only in
Muslim sharia law, but also in a certain “progressivism” or “liberal fascism” that got its start
under Woodrow Wilson and continued under Italian fascism and German nationalism
(Nazism).[18] Some might argue that the “Moral Majority” effort in the 1970s was an attempt
to “legislate morality” and thus was a move toward totalitarianism. But perhaps a more
accurate picture would be one of trying to preserve certain ideals—traditional marriage and
the life of the unborn—in the face of politically liberal forces engineering changes in social
trends. A picture of indifference would be the Amish, who have detached themselves from
society and live in their own insular communities, even though they are less insulated now
than previously.
A wiser course is to engage in principled persuasion to win over hearts and minds rather
than merely changing laws. Yes, Christians should seek to effect change to protect
fundamental values articulated in or implied by Scripture, and we should give public reasons
for doing so. In our pluralistic age, we should not appeal directly to Scripture (special
revelation), which is not accepted as authoritative. Rather, we should attempt to persuade by
making a public case in which we appeal to statistics and studies that support a biblical
perspective (general revelation). For example, we can give scientific or sociological evidence
concerning the harm that comes to women through abortion or that comes to couples and
marriages through cohabitation. What if harm comes to the poor when government legislates
high taxes for the wealthy who could otherwise have employed those in need of a job? The
attempt to persuade our fellow citizens about such things implies that God’s revelation is a
matter of public knowledge, not a private opinion.
Some prominent politicians such as John F. Kennedy and former New York governor
Mario Cuomo—both Roman Catholics—gave the impression that personal faith and public
life must be absolutely compartmentalized. Kennedy, for example, claimed that he was
running as a Democrat, not as a Roman Catholic. He was a Democrat who happened to be
Catholic, and he insisted that the church did not speak for him. Likewise, Cuomo insisted
that though he disagreed with abortion personally, he would not seek to curtail it publicly.
This is an unfortunate departure from the rich Christian (and more specifically Catholic)
tradition that has actually shaped our culture’s thinking about human rights, democracy and a
host of other human goods we take for granted. Kennedy and Cuomo made the mistake that
special revelation or theology cannot give us genuine knowledge.[19] This is the very
argument the secularist makes for removing all vestiges of faith from the public square. But
why should the Christian accept that caricature? Why think that secularism ought to be
accepted as the default position? Why not rather offer a persuasive case for one’s beliefs,
even if one does not directly appeal to Scripture? Why not use the resources of general
revelation—reason, human experience, empirical evidence, conscience and the like—which
are publicly available for scrutiny and discussion?
Os Guinness presents three alternatives regarding engagement in our society—we can
either be tribespeople, idiots or citizens. Tribespeople are intolerant of anything outside of
their “tribe” or beyond the concerns of their own special-interest group. Idiots are totally
private and indifferent to public philosophy and civil engagement. Citizens recognize their
membership in the “commonwealth” and appreciate the knowledge and skills that underlie
the public life of a civilized community, which is based on the common grace given to all
men by God.[20] We should avoid the extremes of tribalism and indifference; we must engage
as citizens for the public good.
Totalitarianism, civil religion and religious freedom. We can speak of other extremes.
One is state totalitarianism, as with Nazism, Soviet communism and Italian fascism; as we
noted, the totalitarian temptation (in the name of “progressivism”) took hold under Woodrow
Wilson, who opposed the Constitution and individual rights.[21] Allegiance to the state
becomes the new absolute—with no room for conscience or commitment to the truth. It
usurps the place of God.
Allegiance to a nation or race can be so strong that it becomes idolatrous, as was the case
with Nazi Germany. Perhaps we can distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. The
former refers to a proper love of and loyalty to one’s country; perhaps we could compare this
to a special love and loyalty to one’s own family. It is fitting to cheer for our country in
Olympic competition, and we take appropriate, grateful “pride” in our national history or
cultural richness. Nationalism, however, idolizes a country as intrinsically superior to other
nations; it can also take the form of refusing to allow criticism of its policies (and punishing
those who do criticize) or of expunging any mention of evils and negatives in its history.
The other dangerous, idolatrous extreme is “civil religion”—when the church and state
are too closely wed together. For example, does having the American flag and the Christian
flag in many of our sanctuaries suggest too close a connection between the two? While we
should be grateful for the existence of our nation and for a police force and military to
protect its citizens, perhaps some of our Sunday “hymns” around July 4th or Memorial Day
can create confusion between loyalty to Christ and nation. Although the hymn “Eternal
Father, Strong to Save” prays for protection of “our brethren” in “peril on the sea,” on
national holidays this becomes a “navy hymn,” and “our brethren” become the US Navy! We
should pray for our nation, as 1 Timothy 2 urges, and we should give thanks for those who
have made sacrifices for our freedoms. We are simply calling for discrimination here so that
we do not “wrap the Bible in the flag.”
As with the call to “return to Christian America,” there is another ambiguity concerning
the term “civil religion.” Sociologist Robert Bellah listed at least five categories or
definitions of civil religion, and not all are idolatrous: (1) folk religion, (2) the transcendent
universal religion of the nation, (3) religious nationalism, (4) the democratic faith and (5)
Protestant civic piety. Bellah cautions against the idea that the central conception of
American civil religion is not a form of national self-worship.[22] While we can reject, say,
religious nationalism, we can endorse “civil religion” if by this we mean a public policy—a
political outlook or philosophy—that has been shaped largely by the Jewish-Christian
worldview with its emphasis on fundamental human and civil rights, due process, equality
before the law, the protection of citizens, the punishing of evildoers and the authorities’
accountability before the law—without excluding those of different faiths from civil
discourse in the public square.
Between the twin idolatries of totalitarianism and civil religion is the proper place of
religious liberty—or the freedom of conscience. We see this theme borne out in the
Scriptures. When under fire from the civil authorities, the apostles did not appeal to “the
right of conscience,” as modern political theorists do. They said they had good reason to
believe their message was true, and they could not stop speaking about what they themselves
had witnessed (Acts 5:27-32).[23]
Christians throughout the ages have faced the conflicts with the legal authorities that have
tried to silence preaching, punish for converting to Christ or for having faith at all. In our
day, Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington, D.C., were forced to shut down their
adoption services because they would have had to go against their conscience in making
adoption available to gay couples. This was a violation of conscience that ultimately
undermines the public good and the positive role that the Christian faith can have in society.
Another assault on good will between church and state took place in 2012, when New York
City mayor Michael Bloomberg banned churches from meeting in the city’s public schools.
Not only was this unnecessary, as many churches (and other religious groups) had cordial
relationships with the schools renting their facilities, but the mayor also undermined the very
positive spiritual and moral influence local churches were having on the city’s communities.
The sacred, naked or civil public square. Another nuance to the discussion could be
framed in terms of the sacred, naked or civil public square. On the one hand, we should
avoid the extreme of a sacred public square that privileges one religious perspective—such
as, say, Protestantism over against Roman Catholicism and Judaism. On the other hand, we
should not adopt a naked public square that expunges all religion from public life and favors
the minority secularist viewpoint over the better represented religionist worldview. Rather,
we advocate a civil public square in which citizens of any faith—or no faith—can engage in
public life within the framework of the Constitution.
In such a civil public square, all citizens can abide by the three R’s of religious liberty to
advance the well-being of all in society. The first is rights—a fundamental, inalienable right
for people of all faiths or none to hold, exercise or change their beliefs independent of
government control. This involves the free exchange and analysis of ideas and the freedom to
persuade others about them. The second is responsibility—the duty to respect the same rights
for others; within this sphere of universal rights and mutual responsibilities we can negotiate
our deepest differences of belief. The third is respect—the freedom to engage in discourse,
debate and persuasion with political civility despite differences. Religious commitment must
not threaten others and must respectfully put up with views regarded as wrong (true
tolerance) since religious consensus will not be achievable.[24]
In July 1974, three thousand evangelical church leaders from around the world signed the
Lausanne Covenant, taking a position that has enduring relevance for the church’s role in
society:
We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share
his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of
men from every kind of oppression. Because mankind is made in the image of God, every
person, regardless of race, religion, color, culture, class, sex, or age, has an intrinsic dignity
because of which he should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express
penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social
concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with man is not reconciliation with
God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we
affirm that evangelism and sociopolitical involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For
both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbor
and our obedience to Jesus Christ.[25]
As we see it, the best arrangement is a benevolent cooperation between church and state
in which the state is frankly open to religiously inspired moral influences and the church
does not seek special privileges, confining its prophetic pronouncements to moral issues
rather than focusing on politicians or political parties.
Further Reading
Guinness, Os. A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American
Future. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.
Neuhaus, Richard John. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America, 2nd
ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Stark, Rodney. The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and
Western Success. New York: Random House, 2006.
Trinity Forum. www.ttf.org.
31The Roles of Church and Government
The Role of the Church
All would agree that the church as the church must clearly proclaim the principles of
justice and mercy. Furthermore, most would agree that it is imperative for the church either
directly or through its representatives to organize medical care, social care, financial care,
involvement in education, correction of poverty and all other “works of mercy.” Thus the
church influences society. But what of political action?
The primary role of evangelism and making disciples. The church’s primary
responsibility involves proclaiming the good news of the gospel and making disciples ( Mt
28:18-19). By God’s grace, the church should seek out people in the kingdom of darkness to
bring them into the kingdom of light. If the church loses this focus, as many mainline
denominations have done, it loses its way and basic purpose for its existence.
As we have seen, social or political activities have their place, but they are secondary to
these more fundamental concerns. In making disciples, the church also has a responsibility to
shape leaders who are committed, courageous, Spirit-filled and informed. These believers
should, as Karl Barth emphasized, have the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the
other; that is, they should be biblically informed as well as knowledgeable about pressing
issues to be addressed in their community and beyond.
In the light of these many serious and abiding ambiguities, we conclude that the church
should concentrate on its primary mission modeled by Jesus and the apostles and clearly
taught in the New Testament. But, as we have earlier argued, the church does have an
obligation to its community as “salt” and “light.” How should it discharge that
responsibility?
Prophetic ministry to society. God’s people have a calling to live Christlike lives before a
watching world and to adorn the gospel (Jn 13:35; Tit 2:10). This dedication to
Christlikeness includes having a prophetic voice in society through word and deed—which
requires courage and character. An example would be the 1934 Barmen Declaration drafted
by Karl Barth in the face of the German church’s capitulation to Nazism under the sway of
Adolf Hitler. Acknowledging that the state was subject to God’s authority, the signatories
affirmed: “We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special
commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus
fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.” Likewise, the church was not to be “an organ of the
State.”
Address specific issues. When should the church speak? How should it speak? The church
should not simply speak in generalities but specifically. John the Baptist did not address
Herod with the general principle that “adultery is wrong.” He said, “It is not lawful for you to
have her” (Mt 14:4). In our day, topics of abortion, gay marriage, sex trafficking or helping
the poor can easily be ignored in our pulpits. Too often churches are cowed into silence by
their non-profit status, which means not being politically partisan. However, pastors and
Christian leaders can and must speak courageously, even while not directly endorsing
candidates or political parties.
Address means as well as ends. The church should speak out on the matter of
ultimate goals, whether abolishing slavery or protecting innocent life. But it should also
speak to means, such as the political implementation—not freeing slaves by shooting
slaveholders or stopping abortion by killing abortionists. The church must be more careful
about the pragmatics of the means, where it has less competence. Perhaps Christians may, in
the name of “Christian integrity,” insist that their Congressional representative introduce
sweeping changes to existing laws on, say, abortion. However, politics often requires
compromise—though not of principles or integrity—to make incremental gains. For
example, a politician may not be able to persuade other legislators to making wholesale
changes to abortion laws, but he may be able to introduce laws to rescue as many unborn
lives. Perhaps one can work to outlaw late-term abortions, even if not all abortions are
outlawed.
When the church errs. What if the church says the wrong thing? It has certainly done so
in theology, but we do not solve the problem by saying the church should not interpret the
Bible. The church often errs in evangelistic practices, but we do not cease engaging in
evangelism. Admittedly, we run risks about speaking on clearly moral issues though we may
be misguided about how or whether to promote this politically.
For maximum effectiveness, the church should limit its social action agenda to causes
that are clearly biblical mandates. For example, bearing arms is a constitutional right, and it
does, in fact, deter crime.[1] That said, conservative Christians should not assume that this has
the weight of, say, the right to life or the sanctity of marriage. On the other hand, yes, helping
the poor is an important emphasis in Scripture. However, Christians on the political left must
be careful about assuming that true Christianity necessarily supports more spending on
welfare programs—especially given the clear track record of government mismanagement,
corruption and breeding dependency. Christians on both sides should give strong weight to
central moral concerns for the well-being of society. Far better to limit our agenda so that we
establish battle lines on clear biblical mandates.
Official voice of the church. May the church make official pronouncements, or is this
prophetic ministry limited to the preacher speaking in private as a citizen? If a Billy Graham
or a Rick Warren speaks on a social issue such as gay marriage or abortion, it will have more
of an impact as “the voice of the church” than almost any major church council resolution.
When any Christian leader speaks, that is the voice of the church to the people who accept
that Christian as a responsible spokesperson of the Christian faith. Clergy in the pulpit,
laypeople on the street, church bodies in council, or parents with their children—they are
“the voice of the church” to those who look to them for spiritual guidance.
The Christian citizen should provide the primary fighting force for justice and mercy, and
the church, through its leaders, should avoid partisan politics and work hard at creating truly
Christian citizens and speaking prophetically to clearly biblical moral issues.
Legislating morality. Can morality be legislated? First, recall that the legal is not
identical to the moral (the problematic view of “legal positivism”). For example, adultery is
legal, but certainly not moral. However, much legislation springs from moral concerns. And
contrary to the cultural relativist, it ought to be legislated; in fact, it cannot be avoided! We
can be grateful for laws condemning rape, murder and theft; even the slogan “You can’t
legislate morality” itself is taking a moral stance. The claim asserts that it is morally wrong
to legislate morality!
Those insisting that what they do in private is no one else’s concern are often quite
wrong: Who pays the bills for gay or drug-using AIDS patients? Does the alcoholic’s
“private” drinking not affect others in his own home or when he is out driving—or when he
enters a tax-funded alcoholic treatment program?
However, we should be careful about over-legislating and creating burdensome laws. If
the government is representative or democratic, it cannot but reflect the judgment of the
society as to what moral standards should be required of all its citizens. If such a society
legislates morals that are not acceptable to the majority, or even to a large minority of its
citizens, the law becomes unenforceable. It is a bad law because it promotes lawlessness.
Therefore, if Christians are interested in having morals legislated, they must not only ask
what is right and what is good for society, they must also ask, what will this society accept?
Of course, they may fight for a losing cause on principle. But if they actually intend to
impose a minority standard on the majority, they should understand that the legal fabric will
be weakened and in the end much more than the specific moral issue will be lost.
The Role of the Individual Christian
We have looked at the church’s role in society. What of individual Christians?
Order of priorities in social responsibilities. Following the example of Christ, Christians
should order their priorities with primary concern for the reconciliation of people with God
and the eternal dimensions of life while at the same time maintaining a deep concern and
involvement in relationships among people and their physical and material needs.
Responsibility for self. As a foundation for social good, individual Christians are
responsible to provide for themselves (1 Thess 4:11-12; 2 Thess 3:10).
Responsibility for family. Furthermore, they have a primary responsibility for their own
family (1 Tim 5:8; see entire chapter). Scripture clearly outlines the responsibility of parents
in training their children (Deut 4:9-10; 11:18-19; Prov 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; Eph 6:1-4).
Here is the foundation for a society under the reign of God.
Responsibility for fellow Christians. The believer’s next responsibility is for fellow
believers. “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who
are of the household of faith” (Gal 6:10 RSV). Much of 1 John emphasizes the loving
responsibility Christians have for their fellow believers’ material welfare.
Responsibility for neighbors.Finally, having been justified (declared righteous) by God
(Rom 5:1; 8:33-34), the believer will seek to do justice to her neighbor (Mic 6:8). This goes
beyond giving a person her due (e.g., desert or punishment), to having regard for her as
God’s image bearer. The latter includes actively loving individual neighbors. How many
proclaim their “love for humanity” yet fail to love the particular humans in their day-to-day
dealings! The justified believer will be pursuing reconciliation in relationships, bringing
God’s shalom where she can, and rectifying unjust social structures that prevent her neighbor
from flourishing. The believer will recognize that because she has freely received from God
(Mt 10:8), she freely gives of her resources to help others.[2]
Responsibility toward society. The Christian’s responsibilities for his society are
especially clear in a democratic system, in which the Christian citizen is part of the
governing body—the people. We have already seen that the believer is responsible to honor
those in authority and to pray for them (Rom 13; 1 Tim 2:2); to obey the civil laws and
authority (Rom 13:1-10); to pay taxes (Rom 13:6); to practice justice and mercy, dealing
justly with employees and working to relieve the poor, the minorities (aliens), the oppressed,
and the weak and vulnerable such as widows and orphans (see Mt 25:31-46, which strongly
emphasizes judgment according to how people have cared for followers of Christ—25:40:
“these brothers of Mine”; cf. 12:46-50—but also has application for neighbors in need of our
care [Lk 10:30-37]).
There are other guidelines that seem consonant with the principles of Scripture, though
they cannot be held to be the clearly revealed will of God. First, in order to fulfill our
responsibility in seeking justice and mercy, the Christian should study the Scriptures to
determine God’s view on any specific issue that arises. The Word of God must be our
controlling authority. Furthermore, the Christian must study the needs of the community—
drugs, crime, slums, poverty, migrants, pornography, racism, family life, unemployment,
housing, disease, unfair tax policy, discrimination, political corruption. What are the specific
facts? What should we do about these problems? When do we begin, and how? Since I
cannot personally bear all the burdens of the world, to what specific areas of need would God
be pleased for me to give my attention?
Voting is another important Christian duty in a democracy; not to engage in this process
is to abdicate one’s responsibility for seeking a just and merciful society when he
deliberately fails to vote. Single votes make a difference. Another means of influence is
voicing what one believes in personal conversation, letters, articles, sermons and letters to
the editor as opportunity affords. In addition, the believer may work on behalf of candidates
in whom he has confidence, or to influence legislation through correspondence, petitions and
in every way possible. At times, it may be appropriate to engage in nonviolent dissent, such
as in sit-ins and marches. Finally, some Christians may pursue a calling in politics or other
professional service to correct physical and temporal ills. Those engaged in medicine, social
work or politics may be sent of God just as surely as those called to carpentry or to the
pastorate. It is certainly appropriate for a Christian to run for office.
Of course, taking legal action on behalf of a just cause is one of the most potent
instruments for social change in a society whose public and private values are increasingly
being set by judicial order rather than legislative or executive action. However, the courts
should interpret the existing law, not induce social change from the bench. If new laws need
to be created due to lack of judicial precedent, this can be done through the
legislative process or through a voter referendum, not through the judiciary, which is not a
lawmaking power. Socially activist courts ultimately usurp the authority of the legislative
branch and destabilize the balance of powers among the three branches of government.
Although it is not appropriate for government officials to transfer biblical standards
wholesale into the execution of their responsibilities in a pluralistic society, the Christian
executive, legislator, judge or other government official can certainly gain insight from
Scripture on the thinking of the chief Lawgiver and Judge.
What about single-issue voting? Though some object to single-issue voting (e.g.,
abortion), this may be a hypocritical objection. First, what if a political candidate is a
member of the Ku Klux Klan, but on all nonracial issues his ideas seem to make sense to his
constituency? Wouldn’t we consider a racist disqualified from office based on that single
issue alone? Abortion is even more heinous than racism, yet some Christians seem to gloss
over the weighty abortion issue in elections or social involvement, claiming that they are not
“single-issue voters.” Would they do the same about a racist candidate? Second, single-issue
politics in the past has focused on landmark issues such as abolition or civil rights. Surely,
some issues are more worthy of focus than others. Third, while it may be unwise to vote for a
candidate because of the single issue in light of other positions she holds, many issues tend to
cluster around various core concerns so that the electorate is usually satisfied with the
“package.” We are not advocating single-issue voting, but we are pointing out problems to
consider.
Finally, let us say something about the shaping of culture. Christian sociologist James
Davison Hunter warns against a certain “Christian idealism”—that slowly but surely we can
start with changing individuals, then families and communities, then make moral and
political reforms: “Change the values of the common person for the better and a good society
will follow in turn.”[3]Now, all of these have a place, and Christians are right to engage in
bringing about changes one step at a time. However, Hunter warns against a certain
idealistic individualism—that an individual such as William Wilberforce can single-handedly
change society. As we saw above, Wilberforce worked in concert with many persons of
influence to bring about widespread societal changes. Hunter also warns against
a dualism that compartmentalizes secular and sacred, public and private, “ignoring the
institutional nature of culture and disregarding the way culture is embedded in structures of
power.”[4]
Culture is complex, involving both ideas (many of which are unconsciously assumed)
and an infrastructure (networks of individuals/institutions that include news organizations,
film, the academy, etc.). And typically elites shape and influence ideas from the top down. If
we fail to take this into account, our broader societal impact will be diminished. To gain
traction, redefining ideas must be embraced by a good representation of these culture-
shaping elites inhabiting these arenas of influence and working in concert. (Think of the
institutional reforms that came through Constantine’s ascent to power—even though the
Christian faith had permeated the Roman Empire.) These elites give shape to new institutions
whose ideas filter down to the broader society.
Hunter insists that “every strategy and tactic for changing the world that is based on this
working theory of culture and cultural change will fail—not most of these strategies, but
all.”[5] Since the 1960s, no contemporary Christian movements have successfully created,
contributed to, or supported “structures in the arts, human letters, the academy, and the
like.”[6] These movements have been insular, being directed primarily at “the faithful.” One
exception has been the movement in Christian philosophy that began in the 1960s and has
led to the formation of groups such as the Society of Christian Philosophers and the
Evangelical Philosophical Society, with their respective philosophical journals as well as
annual and regional conferences. These movements have gained respect in the academy, and
their efforts are having a broader cultural impact.
This is what Princeton Seminary’s president J. Gresham Machen articulated back in 1913.
He pointed out that false ideas are the greatest hindrance to the reception of the gospel; so we
must, with God’s help, prepare the cultural soil so that the gospel will be rightly understood
and received—as true and life-changing rather than as a fairy tale and crutch for anti--
intellectuals—a “harmless delusion.”[7] This is true for evangelism, but also for social
change. That is, Christians must create a certain “plausibility structure” for new gospel-
inspired values to be embraced. Christians should strive to show that the gospel can be
embraced for intellectual reasons as well as for “reasons of the heart” (the existential); that
is, Christ addresses the deepest needs of the mind and the human spirit—hope, significance,
security, immortality, purpose. Pastors and church leaders should affirm the proper place of
the life of the mind, the imagination and the shaping of culture to God’s glory. The church
should support gifted thinkers, artists and writers in its midst, urging them to work with
excellence to be winsome witnesses and influential role models in their disciplines and
professions.
While Christians should distinguish themselves morally from the rest of culture, they
should be engaged with the world—a “holy worldliness” (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-11). James Hunter
says that Christians should avoid the common “Christian Right” attitude (a “defensive
against culture” position), the “Christian Left” attitude (“relevance to culture”), and the
“Neo-Anabaptist” position (“purity from culture”). Instead, our witness should be
incarnational, using the model of “faithful presence within culture.” Christians must leave
the security of their “holy huddle” on the margins of society, where they lack cultural clout.
They should practice faithful presence within culture and seek to be a Christ-centered
influence within culture-shaping institutions insofar as they are able so as to make a broader
impact for Christ—both as witnesses to the gospel and culture shapers who help bring
God’s shalom—faithfully ordered living—for a flourishing human society.
Christians in nondemocratic societies. Although we are primarily writing for a Christian
audience that is Western—and more specifically, American—we want to raise the question:
What about Christians in nondemocratic societies with few or no freedoms? Here are a few
brief responses. First, a number of our comments will apply in many other settings—the
Christian duty to be exemplary citizens and lead quiet and peaceable lives, to evangelize, to
pursue reconciliation in personal relationships, to pray for political leaders and so on. Those
biblical principles are universal, but the way they apply may differ, depending on the level of
freedom in particular societies. As American authors within a particular political system, we
do not here attempt to draw those lines for believers in other cultures. The body of Christ in
each political setting must prayerfully find its own way, while remaining faithful to biblical
teaching.
Second, unlike the West (“global North”), we can be encouraged by the fact that the
church’s growth has been explosive in the global South. The noted scholar Philip Jenkins has
documented one of the most remarkable, yet unreported, trends today. In 1900, there were 10
million Christians in Africa; in 2000, there were 360 million—and an anticipated 633 million
by 2025. And if present trends continue, Latin America will have 640 million and Asia 460
million by then. By 2050, there will be as many Pentecostals as there are Muslims today.
What’s more, these believers are drawn to the historic Christian faith and have a high view of
Scripture; they are theologically and morally conservative. These “Southern Christians” are
attempting to re-evangelize the West and are appointing their own leaders rather than
following theologically liberal Western bishops. Christianity’s center of gravity is shifting.
And an Internet search will reveal how the conversion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim-
background believers is often accompanied by visions of Jesus or other supernatural
manifestations.[8]
Third, this work of God brings with it a “redemptive lift” that begins to affect families
and communities. Like a mustard seed or a batch of yeast, the slow-but-sure movement of
God’s expanding kingdom is penetrating hearts and permeating communities. Dorothea, the
heroine in George Eliot’s Middlemarch, exemplifies this kind of incalculable, diffusive
influence. Eliot concludes: “The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric
acts . . . and is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
unvisited tombs.”[9]
Fourth, despite limited religious freedoms and no political options, many of these
believers in the global South are seeing God at work; our brothers and sisters committed to
prayer are engaged in casting out demons and regularly see miraculous healings taking place.
[10] We can rejoice at what God is doing in the world, and Christians North and South can
pray and work together in hopes that the gospel will profoundly penetrate societies all around
the world and that this, in turn, will lead to renewed social and political structures to better
promote human flourishing.
The Role of Government
We have looked at the responsibility of the church and of the individual Christian in
society. What then is the divinely given task of government?
The strongest evidence for human government being an institution ordained of God is
found in the New Testament rather than in the Old. To be sure, Israel was established as a
human government, and the prophets certainly hold all human governments accountable to
God’s law, but it takes some strong imagination to make Genesis 9:1-6, for example,
evidence of God’s establishing human government in the abstract or in some particular form,
as some have attempted. But human government as a divine ordinance is clearly affirmed in
Scripture: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority
except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1 RSV). But
just as marriage’s being made in heaven does not bestow divine approval on every
marriage (e.g., between a Christian and an unbeliever), so human government is God’s idea
even though God does not approve of every ruler or politician (see Hos 8:4).
Purposes of government. The government is not to be self-serving but to serve the
“good” of the people (Rom 13:4). In some countries, the head of state is aptly called the
“prime minister.” According to Scripture, how is the government to serve its people?
Maintaining order. Civil order is always better than anarchy, and the government has an
obligation to keep order so that citizens may “lead a tranquil and quiet life” (1 Tim 2:2).
Protecting citizens, executing justice, restraining evil. In keeping order in fallen societies,
force is often necessary. According to the most extensive passage on government (Rom 13),
the purpose of human government is to restrain evil, especially in protecting the citizens.
Human sin created the acute need for the use of force by civil government (1 Pet 2:14). The
minister of the state bears “the sword” (Rom 13:4)—an image of (sometimes lethal) force.
This represents more than a police officer’s ticket book. Thus a government should work to
protect innocent civilians from invading nations from without and criminals within. Police or
military personnel who receive bribes and thus prevent proper enforcement of the law and
protection of its citizens are a scandal. Where police cannot be trusted, justice is undermined.
Most people have preferred human government to none, but since rulers have seldom
been content with the minimum authority necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry, the
state’s tendency is to expand control over the lives of citizens. Although some who idealize
“freedom” believe that we would be better off without any government whatsoever, in a
world of sin-prone, selfish people, some government is better than anarchy. Force seems the
only way to keep some people from harming others.
Protecting God-given rights. The question arises: are governments obligated to provide
certain goods to which citizens are entitled? Political philosophers distinguish
between negative (or natural) rights and positive rights. First, what is a right? A right is a
warranted or justified claim on others. Negative rights are minimal rights of noninterference
—the right not to be harmed, coerced and enslaved by another; the government has a
minimal duty to protect against such interference. More controversial and problematic
are positive rights—a claim by some on the assistance of others, a claim to “promote
another’s welfare.” Is universal healthcare or a university education a right? Do people have
a right to employment and housing or government meals? Is the government obligated to
provide breakfast and lunch or after-school services for children? Do illegal immigrants have
a right to health care and driver’s licenses? These alleged “rights” seem limitless and can
bloat a government and rapidly deplete its resources. What about individual and family
responsibility? What about fraud and the creation of dependency that is so common with
expansive government?
Once the “promoting the welfare” idea is introduced, the potential for expanding
government becomes immense. For this reason, some hold that the only legitimate role of
government is to protect citizens from injustice, especially since this is the only role ascribed
to government in the classic passages, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. But the only government
superintended directly by God—ancient Israel—certainly established law for the promotion
of the welfare of the citizens. Nevertheless, the primary purpose remains the role of
guaranteeing justice, preserving order and protecting people from malicious harm. When
government expands, either to control evil or to promote human welfare, the tendency is to
eclipse human freedom—and to bloat government.
The question of freedom. The Bible has much to say about freedom, but not
about political freedom. It speaks of freedom from sin (Rom 6:14-23), from the power of
darkness (Col 1:13), from bondage to Satan (Jn 12:30-33), from the Mosaic law (Rom
7:6; Gal 2:4; 4:5, 21; 5:1) and from bondage to death (Rom 8:21-23). There is a glorious
freedom in Christ (Jn 8:32, 36), for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor
3:17). Biblical freedom is not a general, absolute, abstract, philosophical concept. It is
specifically spiritual and moral: freedom from sin and freedom to live as God intended
human beings to live. No one is absolutely free. We will serve God or serve sin. Freedom
should not be used as a license (Gal 5:1-2). Using “freedom” to act immorally is actually
bondage.
Nevertheless, we advocate personal freedom of choice to the extent possible in a just
society. Though the Bible is not strong in emphasizing it, when God himself intervenes in
human affairs, it is to set the captives free from Egyptian bondage and, indeed, through the
Messiah to break the bonds of all injustice and set the captives free (Is 61:1; Lk 4:18).
While the case for political freedom is not strong in explicit biblical teaching, it certainly
can be strongly advocated on the basis of the principles of Scripture. For example, the Bible
clearly teaches our primary responsibility to God, and a totalitarian state does wrong
prohibiting worship of God and forcing the violation of conscience (Acts 5:29). Furthermore,
God created humans with the capacity to make choices, and a measure of freedom is
necessary to do so. Political freedom enables citizens to discharge their primary
responsibility in life, which is to God, not the state. Also, when a controlling state (think
George Orwell’s 1984) controls the minute details of human choices, the very image of God
in humankind is demeaned. The state has no divine right of ownership, and it should not
usurp the place of God by assuming unbounded, ultimate authority (Jn 19:11). Therefore,
governmental authority must have limits.
Forms of government. While we must await the new heavens and earth in which
righteousness dwells to live under God’s infinitely wise rule (2 Pet 3:13), we must come to
terms with government in a fallen world. Apart from this, Scripture does not tell us which
particular form of government is best. In terms of actual forms of government, these fall
under two basic categories: (1) autocratic (e.g., monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy) and (2)
democratic (including representative forms of government by the people, such as a republic).
Autocratic regimes—with power concentrated in the hands of one or few—have a far greater
capacity for horrific evil. They lack the checks and balances of a democratic system under
constitutional law.
Christians have lived under virtually every form of government, and, despite the fall of
Communism and the impulse toward democracy in many nations, most people of the world
still live under governments that severely restrict personal freedom. Therefore, most
Christians on planet Earth must come to terms with this reality. How helpful that the biblical
authors lived under similar circumstances! In fact, the book of Revelation was written to
Christians in Asia Minor (Turkey) whose cities were prominent centers of the emperor cult
and worship of Roman deities (Rev 2–3). Christians did not attend monthly social festivals
held in honor of the gods, and they did not become part of the local trade guilds (like our
labor unions), which required devotion to their patron deities. Although Revelation has a
transhistorical message for Christians throughout the ages, the first-century Christians faced
the “beast” of the Roman Empire’s political and religious opposition (cf. Rev 2:10, 13). They
faced social ostracism, persecution, and economic deprivation; they “could not buy or sell”
unless they showed formal allegiance to the “beast” (Rev 13:17).[11]
These kinds of problems with autocratic rule do not imply that democracy is flawless.
The same sinfulness may well mean democracy in the long term is destined to self-
destruction. Soon after the founding of America, in the 1830s, the French social philosopher
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his incomparable analysis of American social
structure, Democracy in America, in which he warned that our individualism might prove the
doom of this experiment. In 1985, distinguished sociologist Robert Bellah published the
groundbreaking Habits of the Heart, which concluded that democracy is doomed if
something does not stop our rush toward the establishment of radical individualism. Bellah
and his colleagues reviewed the history of America and concluded that the formative
American idea is freedom. But in the beginning, with our biblical root system, that freedom
was to seek the common good, whereas, cut off from those roots, today freedom is sought
and defended to promote individual self-interest.
After the American Constitution was hammered out, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a
citizen about what kind of government the United States now had. “A Republic, if you can
keep it” was his reply. Indeed, without the leavening effect of the Jewish-Christian moral
understanding that has actually given rise to democracy—due process, equal rights before the
law and a commitment to the common good—the future of democracy looks bleak. If the
biblical impulses toward justice, fairness and mercy can continue to influence public policy
debate, perhaps the sinful selfishness of the people who vote can be held in check, at least for
a time. So far, at least, democracy seems to have proved more compatible with Christian
values than autocratic government.
Governmental social action in a free society. There is probably a universal consensus
that government ought to protect its citizens from injustice and that it has an obligation to
support those who simply cannot care for themselves. But the unanimity dissolves about
whether the government should expand to guarantee the welfare of all its citizens. Individual
Christians and the church should actively participate in alleviating human suffering where
they can; unfortunately, the church has abdicated much of its social responsibility to the
government. Families, which are the core of a cohesive and flourishing society, are
increasingly fragmented. Because of this, the presumed burden falls to the government to
address this crisis, yet the federal government is notoriously wasteful and inefficient.
Where possible, government assistance should be a stop-gap measure, and as we saw
with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 personal responsibility and accountability should be
built into government programs. The government should strive to wean people off
government subsidies rather than enlarging the number of government dependents.
Compassion should not be measured by increased numbers of people on welfare rolls, but by
moving people from being legitimate “receivers” (or illegitimate “takers”) to being “givers.”
That is, they end up supporting and contributing to the public well-being. Showing concern
for the needy does not mean the perpetuation of dependence, but rather creating structures so
that once needy people can become free from government dependence to being self-standing
citizens.
The government must display its own fiscal responsibility by attending to balancing its
budget rather than sinking further into debt. At the time of writing, the US national debt is
over $17 trillion with little being done to curtail runaway spending and to balance the budget.
The worst way to help the poor is for a nation to continue spending money it does not have.
Comedian Steve Martin’s classic skit, “Don’t buy stuff you cannot afford” advocates that
“You shouldn’t buy stuff if you don’t have the money.”[12] Whether one is budgeting for the
family or for the country, this is commonsensical. The government should work to balance its
budget annually and focus on necessary rather than frivolous or incidental (“pork barrel”)
expenditures. Citizens should hold the government accountable for its use of tax dollars and
for avoiding generational debt for future citizens.
Further Reading
Beckwith, Francis J. Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2010.
Craig, William Lane, and Paul Gould, eds. The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar:
Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
First Things (a journal on religion, politics, culture and public life). www.firstthings .com.
Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of
Christianity in the Late Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
32Christian Engagement in Society
How does a Christian relate to authority in her dual role as citizen of heaven and of some
nation-state here on earth? Some have held that she is a true citizen only of heaven and that
she should separate herself as much as possible from involvement in the earthly state. On the
other hand, most church traditions have held that the better she practices her heavenly
citizenship, the better citizen she will be on earth. Both those who believe in isolation and
those who believe in involvement teach that the normal response of the Christian toward
civil authority is obedience.
Submission and Mandated Disobedience
Paul and Peter exhort believers to submit to governing authorities, which are under God
(Rom 13:1-5; 1 Pet 2:13-14). But is it ever right to resist civil authority? Not only may a
Christian resist; he must resist when any authority demands disobedience to God. “We must
obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; see also Acts 4:17-20). Daniel and his friends did
right in disobeying the king’s idolatrous orders (Dan 2; 6). The Hebrew midwives were
commended for disobeying an evil law (Ex 1). Christ told his disciples to proclaim the good
news to every person (Lk 24:47; cf. Mt 28:18-19), and they obeyed him. The argument
during the Nuremberg Trials that Nazi officers were “just following orders” incorrectly
assumes that the legal is the moral; by extension, this means that no citizen can ever do
wrong so long as he is following orders. This argument ignores the existence of a cosmic or
transcendent law to which all of us are accountable, regardless of what society we happen to
be in.
What about laws that give freedom to evangelize but do not allow the distribution of
gospel literature on public conveyances, as in Japan. What about smuggling Bibles into
communist China? Must the Christian missionary insist on this particular form of
evangelism? Does God mandate it? Our conclusion is that good activity, when not mandated
by Scripture, may sometimes be justifiable but is not required. Personal guidance may be
claimed, but such guidance does not have clear biblical authority and should be resorted to
with caution. Prudence must be used since the activity may not be necessary for obedience to
God and may jeopardize other more important values, such as freedom to witness in other
ways. Furthermore, the lawbreaker must be prepared to suffer the consequences. Paul said,
“If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not
seek to escape death” (Acts 25:11 RSV).
Thus, when commanded to disobey the revealed will of God, the Christian must disobey
the human command; when forbidden to do something good that is not mandated by
Scripture, the Christian may, under some circumstances, disobey the human command.
Civil Disobedience
But what of resistance when the government does not make demands on believers
concerning their religion or moral behavior, but itself does wrong? Remember that Paul
spoke of submission to the authorities when the tyrant Nero ruled Rome. And Jeremiah
instructed exiled Judahites living under the despot Nebuchadnezzar to “seek the welfare of
the city where I have sent you into exile” and to pray for it (Jer 29:7). It is no sin for a
believer to submit to an unjust government. Certainly there is no room for those in a free
society to sit in judgment on a brother or sister living submissively under totalitarian rule. At
the same time, we must note that Rahab of Jericho and the Egyptian midwives, for example,
were not submissive—they resisted their own governments. For this resistance they were
rewarded by God and enshrined among the biblical heroes of faith. Thus we conclude that
sometimes it was not wrong to resist unjust authority.
How do we put the two apparently contradictory concepts together? Ordinarily believers
should be obedient subjects when not required to disobey God, but sometimes it may be
God’s will for them to resist an unjust or merciless ordinance or regime. When? Even though
American colonists were indeed being treated as less than full British citizens by the British
government, were the colonists justified in overthrowing British rule through revolution? Or
consider liberation theology, which flows from European Marxist intellectuals but is most
closely associated with Latin America and its history of suffering and the exploitation of the
poor. It emphasizes the dynamic of praxis (practice) in helping the poor over against merely
holding orthodox theological beliefs.
One evangelical proponent of civil disobedience was Francis Schaeffer, who insisted that
the state has only delegated authority, which should be used to punish evildoers and protect
what is good in society. When the state punishes the good and rewards evil, it becomes
tyrannical and thus forfeits that authority, and civil disobedience is warranted under such
conditions.[1]
The problem is not whether to disobey the government when it demands disobedience to
God, but whether the Christian citizen is obligated to force the government itself to stop
disobeying God. The question is not whether I must refuse to abort my unborn child, as
might be required of a Christian in China, but whether I must force the government to stop
subsidizing the abortion of the unborn, and even whether I must force the government to stop
everyone from aborting. When do I take up arms against the government—or bombs against
abortion clinics?
The apostles Paul and Peter are too clear on the central thesis that subjection to civil
authority is normative Christian behavior. Civil disobedience when the citizen is required to
sin? Yes. Resistance to human law that violates God’s law? On occasion, yes, in the tradition
of the Hebrew midwives. But required of the believer as normative behavior? Hardly.
Violent overthrow of an established government is not biblically permissible, though we
are not unsympathetic to the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Claus von Stauffenberg, who
were involved in plots to assassinate Hitler for his moral abominations. Nonviolent resistance
is more in keeping with submitting to those in authority—even evil ones—rather than
revolution and violent overthrow. We should note, however, that Gandhi and Martin Luther
King Jr. succeeded only because the governments they appealed to were fairly humanitarian
and better informed by biblical values. They would serve as misleading models for those
under unscrupulous totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Communism, in which the likes of
Gandhi, King and their followers would have simply “disappeared.”
But the question remains, “When all nonviolent means have been exhausted in an attempt
to seek redress of wrongs, is using military force to overthrow an evil regime a channel open
to believers?” If war itself is ever justifiable, when two governments exist and are in conflict,
Christians may choose the side they believe is most just. But in the absence of a second
government, such as a revolutionary government, the private citizen, or the church, or any
other group of private citizens violate Scripture in resorting to force.
The Schools
State schools and values. Though Scripture assigns the responsibility of nurturing
children to parents, society as a whole may have a legitimate interest in assuring that the
rising generation is adequately equipped for a useful role in the community. There is also the
self-interest of a society in the literacy, skills and socialization of its citizens. If the state does
not guarantee education and literacy for all children, history would seem to indicate that only
the privileged few will benefit from formal education. So there is also a humanitarian
element in providing free public education for all.
When a society is homogeneous—as, for example, American society of a century ago and
Japanese society today—public education can easily incorporate commonly held values. But
when a society becomes culturally and religiously diverse, a common education becomes
increasingly fraught with problems.
Pluralism in the society would seem to demand pluralism in education, and many assume
that public—and increasingly secular—education is value neutral. But values are
inescapable, as even the secularist has a viewpoint about reality (metaphysics) and about
how or whether we can have knowledge (epistemology). The secularist takes an ethical
stance as well—say, on abortion, homosexuality, whether morality is relative, and the
like. As we have seen earlier, the refusal to make moral judgments is inescapably moral, and
no doubt this “politically correct” viewpoint will consider any moral judgments to be terribly
“intolerant”! Not only this, civilized society would be undermined by an alleged value
neutrality. This is precisely the problem for “neutral” multiculturalists in Europe who do not
know what to do with an increasingly uncooperative Muslim population in its midst.
We are living in an increasingly pluralistic society. How should specific values be taught
in public school settings? In at least two ways. First, establish consensus values. Because of
God’s “common grace” available within cultures, apart from God’s “saving grace,” we can
find moral commonalities. As we have seen, many cultures across the ages have affirmed
duties embodied in the last six commandments, thanks to God’s general revelation. We can
build on the common recognition that human life is sacred; that plagiarism and cheating are
wrong; that truth-telling in a court of law or as the basis for friendship is vital; that a person
should respect another’s private property and not take what doesn’t belong to her; that
adultery profoundly harms relationships; that properly understood respect for parents and
teachers (even if this includes disagreement) is a building block for respecting authority as
citizens. One does not need to appeal to the Bible to make a case for such moral demands.
While much more work needs to be done, say, on persuading people about the sanctity of
marriage over against cohabitation or about the harm brought by a duty-to-self ethic, we have
much to build on.
Another way is local-option education in values.A true pluralism could be established by
allowing any person or group to provide education in values for his child from any
perspective he desires by any qualified person of his choice as part of the program of public
school education—so long as this does not bring harm to society. In the 1972 Supreme Court
case Wisconsin v. Yoder, the question under consideration was whether the state could compel
children (in this case, of Amish parents) to receive public education after the eighth grade.
The Supreme Court sided with Jonas Yoder, observing that the Amish generally did a fine job
of rearing wholesome, virtuous children and that Wisconsin failed to show it had a
compelling interest in mandating public education for the Amish.[2]
This is a different picture from some Islamic schools (and mosques) in Western Europe
that are hotbeds for Islamic radicalism and advocating sharia law. Of course, sharia law
typically undermines the rights of women for self-determination, advocates female genital
mutilation, and opposes the free exercise of religion (e.g., to convert to another religion) and
the freedom of speech.[3]Clearly, Muslim schools that would advocate both sharia law and the
undermining of a nation’s democracy, constitution, and the pursuit of law and order are quite
different from the educational approach of the Amish.[4]
We should again mention school choice. As we noted in chapter twenty-seven, allowing a
choice injects competition into the educational system by empowering parents to use
taxpayer money for “vouchers” to pay for their children to attend well-performing schools—
public, private, charter or home schools—rather than being confined to “boundary schools.”
Education should meet fundamental academic standards, and, as we have seen, it should
support rather than undermine constitutional democracy, human rights and the flourishing of
society. But parents should not be stuck with sending their children into schools that are
unsafe, fail to educate their students, and do not maintain discipline in the classrooms.
Although there will be divergent values in a pluralistic democratic society, a common
moral core also exists, and Christians seeking to influence society can build on this
foundation and encourage freedom of conscience and proper tolerance where disagreement
exists. Tolerance, of course, implies that some value systems are inferior to others.
Then there is the alternative of the private school.
Private Christian schools. A constitutional right. Though earlier Supreme Court
decisions granted the right to states to mandate public school education for all children,
recently it has consistently ruled in favor of parents who wish to provide alternatives. The
state has the right to require standards, but not to bar privately operated equivalent education.
Constitutional law expert William Bentley Ball makes the distinction clear: “There is a vast
difference between saying that ‘education is a function of the State’ and saying that
‘education belongs to the State.’” To say that the State has a legitimate interest in educating
some of the people is far from saying that it may control the education of all of the
people.”[5] Although the High Court is clear on this, not all local administrators are. So
vigilance is necessary to protect the rights of parents who want their children to have an
education that conforms to their conscience as well as to the educational standards of the
state.
Validity. Private Christian education may be legal in a pluralistic society, but is it
desirable? If it is, what about Muslim communities in Western Europe, who press to have
their own private schools (madrassas) to teach their values—which can be subversive of
national constitutions and destructive to democratic values—rather than those of the state?
Let’s address the latter question first. As we compare these Christian schools and madrassas
in Western Europe, apart from students meeting certain academic competencies required by
the state, we noted above that the state may have an interest in not permitting schools that
undermine the constitution and subvert the public good.
As to the first question, there are several reasons that seem almost to demand private
education as the public schools move farther into secularism and embrace it as the default
view. First, if education attempts to undermine God, the ultimate reality, then this will skew
how we approach a whole range of disciplines crucial to understanding who we are as human
beings—psychology, anthropology, behavioral sciences, philosophy, literature (authorial
intent versus reader-response theory), ethics, science (origins, design), art, though less so in
medicine and agriculture. Many subjects in a secularized school’s curriculum will directly
subvert the faith and values Christian parents are trying to instill in their children. Second,
when relativism, a duty-to-self ethic and postmodernism are drummed into the minds of
students, this not only flies in the face of the Christian outlook, but also undercuts
responsible citizenship in a nation.
Ideally, Christian schools offer an alternative, teaching truth and spiritual values that are
recognized and honored—an opportunity to reinforce the values parents desire to instill into
their children at home.
But there are problems with the Christian school movement. Some of these schools may
be substandard educationally. Even where they are equivalent or superior, students may be
isolated from “real life,” creating something of a “Christian bubble.” Furthermore, some
Christian schools have much of the same “drama,” gossip, ostracism, teasing and cliques
found in public schools. Students may be inoculated to the Christian faith by exposure to
“institutionalized Christianity” and perhaps legalistic standards without experiencing vibrant
Christian living. And perhaps parents send their children to Christian schools as a version of
glorified babysitting: the parents may be professing Christians yet utterly fail to embody
Christlikeness, thus creating a certain resentment in the child at parental hypocrisy. Another
concern: having had a Christian education from elementary school through high school, a
student may face a rude awakening in a secular university—with clashing worldviews and
immoral student lifestyles.
Given the direction public education in America is going, increasing numbers of
conscientious parents can be expected to join the exodus to Christian education—and many
of these are opting for homeschooling.
Homeschooling.An alternative to public school education, for which an increasing
number of parents are opting, is homeschooling. Whereas there were 10,000 homeschooled
children in the 1970s, in 2007 there were 1.5 million. The number of homeschooled children
increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.9 percent in 2007.[6]
Homeschooling has advantages. It can reinforce strong family ties, integrate education
with life, and protect children from secularist evangelism and destructive peer pressure. Also,
teaching one or two students is generally more effective than teaching a class of thirty
because instruction can be personalized. The conventional wisdom that homeschooled
children lack socialization skills does not square with the evidence. For his doctoral
dissertation, Larry Shyers had trained counselors observe both homeschooled and public-
schooled eight- to ten-year-old children at play: “The study found no big difference between
the two groups of children in self-concept and assertiveness, which was measured by their
social development tests. But the videotapes showed that youngsters who were taught at
home by their parents had consistently fewer behavioral problems.”[7]
A 1997 study of 5,402 homeschooled students revealed that they outperform their public
school counterparts by 30–37 percentile points in all subjects—an average of 59th percentile
for public school students compared to those homeschooled the last two or more years
scoring between the 86th and 92nd percentile.[8]
Homeschooling is not for everyone, and parents must take public, private and
homeschooling alternatives on a case-by-case basis. Christian parents may have strong
opinions about each of these avenues as being the “Christian” or “ideal” approach, but this is
unwise. For example, in more conservative communities the need for separate education is
less pressing, and some public “magnet” or “charter” schools may be both academically
challenging and wholesome, furnishing an opportunity for Christian students to mix with
non-Christian peers and be salt and light to them. And, of course, consistent parental
involvement in their children’s education is the best guarantee that they will succeed
academically.
When considering homeschooling, parents should consider educational quality, the needs
of the individual child, and their own fitness to teach and willingness to commit the time and
effort necessary. Every child is “home schooled” in that the home is the first, the
foundational and God-ordained context for learning the most significant lessons of life. God
has given parents the primary responsibility for educating their children, regardless of which
alternative structure of education is chosen. Though institution-based education relieves
parents of much “hands-on” instruction, parents should be involved continually in the
supervision, integration and evaluation of their children’s education.
But we can confidently affirm that two God-ordained institutions—the Christian home
and the church—are the primary antidote to problems generated by flawed educational
systems, whether public or private. Though not absolute, the influences of these two
institutions bear out the proverb, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is
old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6 RSV).
The Media
Newspapers, magazines and movies all participate in value formation, but the strongest of
all influences is television. Although Nielsen ratings recently indicated that TV watching is
technically on the decline, this is small comfort, as movies, videos and various forms of
electronic entertainment are on the rise.[9] The average American will have watched the
equivalent of nine years of television in his lifetime—compared to the mere months the
average Christian spends in Sunday school and church services over a lifetime. The disparity
of influence—let alone time investment—is enormous.
Falsehoods from Hollywood.Television critic Michael Medved has highlighted three lies
coming out of Hollywood.[10]
“It’s only entertainment—it doesn’t influence anybody.” No one really believes this. Just
think of the billions spent on television advertising to influence viewers. How much more the
movies and TV series watched by our culture! He adds that evidence from more than sixty
major university studies indicates that “prolonged exposure to violent images on television
does lead to more hostile, violent and aggressive attitudes and behaviour in real life.”
“We just reflect reality. Don’t blame us; blame society.” How many murders does the
average person see in real life? The vast majority of us have not witnessed one. But how
many murders does a person see on television? Out of an average of 350 characters on
primetime TV each night, seven of them are murdered—a far cry from reality. What about
sexual promiscuity? Medved notes a 1994 University of Chicago study indicating greater
sexual satisfaction for married persons than single people. But according to Hollywood,
promiscuous sex is more exciting; in fact, it’s the only kind of sex that is portrayed. These
depictions are a far cry from normal life. The same is true of the portrayal of religion, the
most serious of matters. Priests are immoral; preachers are money-grubbing charlatans;
church buildings are filled with mindless fanatics. Of course, movie producers will bash
Jesus—as in Martin Scorsese’s Last Temptation—but they wouldn’t dream of trashing
Muhammad or Islam. “Freedom of expression” in the media has its limits!
“We give the public what it wants. If people don’t like it, they can always turn it off.” The
fact is that many moviemakers have a culture-changing agenda. For the most part, they see
themselves as change agents and deliberately attempt to foster a value-neutral if not an
antireligious, antitraditional-value perspective. Medved writes,
for 20 years, movies rated G and PG—for family audiences—have done better on average
than R-rated movies by a ratio of more than two to one. And yet the number of R-rated films
has risen to over 60 percent of movies. Why? Because Hollywood hands out prestige and
recognition based on the absurd notion that artistry is not the ability to inspire but the ability
to shock.[11]
And it’s no solution to say, “Just don’t watch those films.” The problem is that once a
profane movie is out, it will become the topic of conversation at school, at work, on TV.
Hearing about them becomes like the air we breathe.
Furthermore, while sex and violence contribute to the coarsening of our culture, the
attack on traditional values is far more thorough and widespread than these two paramount
concerns. James Hitchcock, a history professor at St. Louis University, observes:
Here [in the mass media] the reigning pieties of twenty years ago—religion, capitalism,
patriotism, the family—find themselves subject to relentless attack. “News” coverage
emphasizes obsessively the problems associated with all these traditional institutions. They
are habitually represented as dying, and as dying because they are rigid, sclerotic, and
atavistic, their only hope for survival based upon their ability to change beyond all
recognition. In those areas of the media which purport to be merely entertainment the
powerful weapon of ridicule is constantly directed at traditional values and those who
espouse them. Such people are routinely depicted as insecure, stupid, neurotic, and
ridiculous. In television fiction, for example, religion is often shown as a deforming
influence, rarely as a positive and supportive element in people’s lives. Religious believers
are either hypocrites or fanatics.
Entertainment, nihilism and a brave new world.A danger of our media world—whether
news, music, movies or all manner of technology—is that we will “amuse ourselves to
death,” as Neil Postman put it.[12] We run the risk of living in Aldous Huxley’s “brave new
world” rather than George Orwell’s 1984 world, in which “Big Brother” would watch our
every move. Huxley’s futuristic picture anticipated that people would come to love their self-
created oppression through being enamored of their technologies, which undo their capacity
to think. They are willing to surrender their freedom so long as the government takes care of
them from womb to tomb. Postman says that while Orwell feared those who banned books,
Huxley feared that there would be no reason to ban a book because no one would want to
read one. Rather than becoming a captive culture (as in 1984), Huxley feared we would
become a trivial culture. It is not what we hate that will ruin us, but what we love. We cannot
endure what does not entertain. News programs that cause us to think or shows without
constantly changing images prompt us to reach for the remote control.[13]
Besides the pursuit of amusement, another noteworthy, and troubling, trend in television
and movies is the increased emphasis on an aimless, absurd and destructive nihilism, which
is reflected in famous serial killings and school shootings such as Paducah, Kentucky;
Columbine, Colorado; and Newtown, Connecticut. Nihilism, according to atheist philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche, is the moral state in which “the highest values devalue themselves,
human aspiration shrinks, and the great questions and elevating quests of previous ages no
longer have any resonance in the human soul.”[14] Nihilism undercuts both tragedy and
comedy, and in many TV shows and movies we witness a detached ironic humor that
portrays genuine suffering as funny; misery is inflicted as a source of amusement. Martin
Scorsese’s Cape Fear is a remake of an earlier version of the film—but Scorsese seems to
delight in terror as an end in itself, almost glorifying it. And his film makes frequent
allusions to Nietzsche’s philosophy.
In this growing number of nihilistic films, the pursuit of happiness is an endless and
ultimately unsatisfying quest, producing a profound melancholy and restlessness. Pessimism
gives rise to new expressions of nihilism, including creative sexual exploitation and violence,
in the name of what Nietzsche calls “the will to power.” This illustrates “the law of
diminishing returns”—previous “thrills” eventually become tiresome and must be surpassed
by further twists of evil.
This reflects what the late French intellectual Jacques Barzun wrote: “In the West the
culture of the last 500 years is ending.”[15]He refers to an emergent decadence. It is not so
much moral decay and corruption, but a “falling off” of Western civilization. After four
revolutions nearly a hundred years apart (religious, monarchical, liberal and social), a
cultural sense of purpose is disappearing. Because there are no clear lines of cultural
advance, we appear to have exhausted all of our seeming possibilities. Art forms seem passé;
boredom, fatigue and restlessness set in as historical forces.[16]
Not surprisingly, nihilism has nowhere to go since God has been removed from culture’s
center stage. In premodernism (prior to the 1600s), God’s existence made sense of the world.
With modernism, the individual human knower displaced God as the starting point for
knowledge, but this led to the shattering of human optimism in the modernist dead ends of
Auschwitz and the Soviet labor camps. Now in our postmodern world (beginning in the
1960s), humans themselves have been decentered, and there is nowhere to turn. Soviet labor
camp survivor and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn rightly noted in his Templeton Address
that “men have forgotten God.”
This mood—indeed, crisis—presents an opportunity for the church to use media to direct
our culture toward the good, the true and the beautiful, which are anchored in the triune God.
Returning to God and to his ultimate reality in individual and cultural life can rejuvenate,
revitalize, and restore the imagination and a profound sense of divine purpose. Epic films
such as The Lord of the Rings do just that. They take seriously human choices and the dread
reality of sin; they portray the human struggle and the beauty of virtue; they aptly depict the
battle of good against evil; and they offer hope and redemption, reflecting an outlook on life
anchored in a transcendent reality. This is the vision that filled the minds of great Christian
thinkers in the past. The philosopher Blaise Pascal spoke of the God-shaped vacuum in each
of us, and St. Augustine confessed, “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are
restless until they find their peace in you.”[17]
Christians and the media. We have already addressed ways in which Christians can
make a difference in society, but here are some further thoughts. First, we must be immersed
in Scripture, renewed and sharpened in our minds so that we can attend to cultural trends
with critical vigilance (Col 3:16; Rom 12:2).
Second, we should deepen and broaden our souls through reading rich, horizon-
expanding literature. The West is increasingly shifting from a reading or word-oriented
culture to a visual or image-oriented one. Not only should we drink deeply from the
Scriptures, but continuously and intentionally read from great literature that nourishes and
deepens the soul; as we read, reflect on, delight in and converse about the insights and
themes from these books, we will find ourselves becoming more human. Think of the
dramatic impact that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin had in helping to humanize
a nation in highlighting the plight of black slaves in the antebellum South. This kind of
reading will help make us better thinkers, make us wiser about life in this world, and enable
us to become more compassionate as we learn to put ourselves in the place of others and
better understand their plight.[18]
Third, Christians should set the trend for thoughtful, high-quality, theologically rich,
Christ-centered programing in Christian radio and television.
Fourth, at a systemic level, the media will change only as media people change.
Christians of talent should gain training and experience to engage and influence the secular
media or to create films that will speak powerful, redemptive, God-honoring messages.
Movies can speak to our human condition in the context of creation, fall and redemption.
When done well, they can deepen us as humans and make the good, true and beautiful
attractive—as has been exemplified in films from It’s a Wonderful Life and Ben
Hur to Chariots of Fire, Bella, Lord of the Rings and Amazing Grace. The same could be
applied to music and other arts.
A fifth area of influence is pressure. We see no biblical principle barring people from
bringing economic pressure on companies and advertisers to promote decency and to
contribute to the public well-being. Whether a Christian should be conscience bound to
personally boycott every product that has sponsored any undesirable program is another
matter. In the complex economic system in which we live one would have to leave this
world, it would seem, to be totally “clean,” certain that not a cent of one’s expenditures
would ever benefit any evil person or cause. But when an advertiser, media company or
particular program becomes blatantly antibiblical in the values it propagates, a personal
boycott may be demanded as the only worthy response.
We have briefly surveyed the major institutions of society, seeking to determine at what
points Scripture gives light on how a Christian and the church itself should relate to
government, education and the media. The issues are complex and the light is often only dim
and oblique, but still we have the promise of the Spirit to guide us through the Word. So let
us not despair, but press forward to more perfectly understand the world in which our lives
are set and the Word God has given to illumine our pathway through it.
Further Reading
Beckwith, Francis J. Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2010.
Cowan, Louise, and Os Guinness. Invitation to the Classics: A Guide to Books You’ve
Always Wanted to Read. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Johnston, Robert K. ed. Reframing Theology and Film: New Focus for an Emerging
Discipline. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Leithart, Peter J. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of
Christendom. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show
Business, 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 2005.
PART XIFallible Choices
Though God’s Word is our ultimate, trustworthy guide for life, our own understanding
and practical application of that standard are subject to error. In this final chapter we turn to
two crucial areas about fallible choices. First, what do we do when we believe there is no
ethical issue at stake but other Christians believe there is? Second, does God have a
preference about the choices in our lives that are apparently neutral—vocation, marriage
partner, employment? How do we decide without special revelation to make such matters
clear?
We have sought to explore the Scriptures with integrity about issues in which God has
given clear revelation. We have discussed biblical ethics using the framework of the Ten
Commandments. And we have also noted that a developed Christlike character—self-control,
contentment, humility, love—is God’s overarching concern for us (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 5:1-2;
cf. Gal 4:19). A well-developed character makes obedience to God’s will more automatic or
second nature, and we will be wiser in making judgments when faced with decisions not
clear in God’s Word.
33Ethical Questions on Which Christians Differ
Wouldn’t life be simpler and life in the believing community more tranquil if Christians
were completely agreed on belief and action? Why the division on certain ethical questions?
There are several reasons.
Reasons for Differences Among Christians
Authority of Scripture. Mark Twain said, “It’s not the parts of the Bible
I don’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” Twain was a skeptic and
hardly sympathetic to biblical authority. One would think things would be different for
professing Christians. However, they may be at odds with one another regarding moral issues
such as abortion or gay marriage because of the same diminished view of biblical authority.
Witness the cultural capitulation of various mainline denominations, bowing to the spirit of
the age. One outspoken mainline Protestant pastor—yes, pastor!—wrote on his blog,
I think the Bible is wrong about most everything. . . . I think the Bible is wrong about
cosmology, history, our future, Jesus, and God. The texts were all written by human beings
without any supernatural or special revelation Don’t misunderstand. I enjoy the Bible. It
is a marvelous human book. I read it and study it with all the critical means at my disposal.
In so doing, I will do my part to undermine its Authority which I think is the next important
step for religious freedom.[1]
While the disagreement may exist between Christians about Scripture’s demands, the
problem here is not Scripture’s clarity but its very authority.
Another cause for disagreement about Scripture’s demands may be the challenge of
discipleship and the difficulty of obedience. Some may hold that, due to the frailty of the
human condition or the impossibility of living up to God’s ideals, God’s commands may be
violated. In this case, some “interpret” the plain teaching of Scripture to invalidate the
command for application to life today—for example, entering into marriage with an
unbeliever or diminishing the uniqueness of Christ and the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20)
because of the pressures brought on by a religiously pluralistic culture. In this approach, the
interpreter has become the authority and standard of evaluation as to which commands apply
and which do not. This will generate conflict with those who accept the plain teaching of
Scripture as the final authority.
Ignorance. Some people differ on ethical questions because they do not know what the
Bible teaches. This is common among new Christians who simply have not read Scripture—
or lifelong professing Christians who are biblically illiterate because they have not diligently
studied the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; Col 3:16). This can also be true of those who, through
tradition or a particular theological or ecclesiastical system, have been influenced to see
Scripture in a particular, flawed way—for example, as justifying antebellum slavery, slave
trade and the inferiority of blacks.
Disputed meanings. Even among those who understand Scripture and are godly and fully
committed to obedience and pleasing God, there are often differences as to what Scripture
actually teaches on a given issue. This is the focus of our attention here. Christians who
disagree about just war, pacifism and the use of force not only diverge on their interpretation
of “turning the other cheek” (Mt 5:39), but they both consider this an inherently moral
matter. On the other hand, we are dealing with questions that are not inherently moral but are
treated as such by certain believers.
These amoral matters are sometimes called adiaphora (matters of indifference). Perhaps
this could include mode of baptism (sprinkling vs. immersion) or, as in Paul’s day, eating
idol meat sold in the marketplace. With the former, some would insist on one mode over
another as a matter of moral conviction. With the latter, some believers did not feel freedom
of conscience about eating meat once offered to idols. Clearly, such disputes will not be
resolved unless the person with scruples comes to recognize that this is not an inherently
moral issue.
Paul’s use of “strong” and “weak” has confused some. Yes, the “weaker brother” is one
who has scruples, but he may be very strong in his convictions. Nor is he
necessarily spiritually weaker. He is weak in conscience as he does not recognize his liberty
in Christ in morally neutral matters—that “in the Lord Jesus . . . nothing is unclean in itself”
(Rom 14:14).
Paul’s discourses in Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 serve as a vital guide about
matters of conscience. The strong person is one who is strong in “faith” or free in conscience
—that is, she is strong in the confidence that God does not condemn her in, say, eating meat
offered to idols. The “weaker” one lacks faith or confidence that the disputed practice is
actually morally neutral. Most earnest Christians will be “strong” in some areas but perhaps
“weak” in others; they consider certain disputed practices wrong and others innocent—even
within the same fellowship.
Paul’s chief point is that we must accept those with whom we differ, without demeaning
or looking down on those whom we may consider unbiblically narrow, on the one hand, or
belittling those whom we may consider unbiblically compromising, on the other. The free-of-
conscience tend to view the conscience-bound as theologically or even intellectually
ignorant, while the conscience-bound tend to view the free-of-conscience as spiritually or
morally compromised. Paul condemns both attitudes, telling both sides, “accept one another
just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Rom 15:7). But practically speaking,
how does one decide the issue itself? Does a standoff of this kind indicate that each person is
free to choose the course of action which pleases him most?
Response to Differing Opinions
Attitude. The goal for Christians is not to please themselves but to please their master,
Jesus Christ (2 Cor 10:14). Rather than settling for what is least harmful, they reach for what
is highest and best. Rather than seeking to avoid punishment, they seek to bring joy to their
heavenly Father—a positive eagerness to please him. And when they faithfully study God’s
Word, their goal is less to master Scripture than to be mastered by it (Is 66:2).
If this is their orientation, they will not choose between two interpreters on the basis of
personal preference. True wisdom from above will discern the twin truths that not all learned
people are godly, and not all godly people are learned. Christian confusion in ethical matters
may very well stem from following erudite theologians who are not submissive to God’s
Word, and many noted for personal godliness may not be careful, astute interpreters of
Scripture. God’s Spirit will not do the homework of interpreting Scripture for us, and each
Christian must assume responsibility to pursue both a thorough understanding of the Bible ( 2
Tim 2:15) and the cultivation of Christlikeness (Gal 4:19). The more reliable guide on ethical
matters on which believers differ is the one who has been diligent in attending to both areas.
Study. Assuming we have adopted an attitude of humility before God’s Word, we will
faithfully study God’s Word. We will take seriously not only principles of effective
interpretation, but also how the great cloud of Christian interpreters—past and present—has
understood the relevant biblical texts. Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan noted
that traditionalism is the dead faith of the living whereas tradition is the living faith of the
dead. And while tradition and biblical commentators in church history are not infallible, we
would be foolish to ignore our rich theological heritage. Knowing the church’s traditions and
interpretations can both invigorate our faith and help shed light on our path.
Rather than assuming ourselves to be self-sufficient interpreters of Scripture, the way of
wisdom recognizes that our reading of Scripture requires community—Christian interpreters
both past and present. The latter includes reading the Scriptures crossculturally: we may
easily gloss over or be blinded to certain moral truths related to materialism, racism or sexual
purity. By reading in community we can proceed with greater clarity as to whether biblical
texts refer to morally neutral matters or morally significant ones. The wise believer should
increasingly be able to distinguish between mere cultural values and biblical ones and
between what is legal and what is moral.
Living wisely. James 3 refers to “wisdom from above,” and as we search the Scriptures,
we will discern Christlike character qualities and dispositions to cultivate relevant insights
concerning disputed matters and disagreement about matters of conscience. Here is a
sampling of questions derived from many sources to make decisions as we seek to walk in
the way of wisdom.
•
Is it for the Lord? Does it bring praise to him? “So, whether you eat or drink, or
whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31 RSV; cf. Rom 14:6-8).
•
Can I do it in his name—on his authority, with his approval? Can I thank him for
it? “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col 3:17 RSV).
•
Can I take Jesus with me? Would Jesus do it? Can Jesus look over my shoulder and
approve? “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Ps
139:7); “your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col 3:3; cf.Mt 28:19-20; Jn 14:16-
17,23; Gal 2:20;1 Pet 2:21).
•
Does it belong in the home of the Holy Spirit? “Or do you not know that your body is
a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not
your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body” (1
Cor 6:19-20; cf.Eph 4:30).
•
Is it of faith, springing from a clear conscience before God? Do I have
misgivings? “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith;
and whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23); “Beloved, if our heart does not condemn
us, we have confidence before God” (1 Jn 3:21).
•
Does it positively benefit, build up (not simply, “Is it harmless?”)? “Let us therefore
make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom 14:19 NIV;
cf. Rom 15:2;1 Cor 10:8; 1 Cor 14:26;Eph 4:12-16).
•
Does it spring from, or lead to, love of this world and its value system? “Do not love
the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not
in him” (1 Jn 2:15; cf.Mk 9:47; 11:14-15).
•
Does it involve a morally or spiritually compromising partnership with an
unbeliever? “Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what partnership have
righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14).
•
Does it have the potential to entice or enslave? “Do you not know that when you
present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you
obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” (Rom
6:16). “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor 6:12 RSV; cf. 1
Cor 10:23;Tit 3:3).
•
Is the motive pride or love? “We know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ But
knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet
know as they ought to know” (1 Cor 8:1-2 NIV).
•
Is a godly mindset the context of my decision on the matter? “Finally, brothers,
whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is
lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of
praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8 ESV; cf. Rom 12:1-2).
•
What does the church or godly guides say about it? “Whoever thus serves Christ is
acceptable to God and approved by men” (Rom 14:18 ESV). “It seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (Acts
15:28 NIV; cf. Rom 14:16).
•
Would I shrink from doing this at the return of Jesus? “Now, little children, abide in
Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in
shame at His coming ....... We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because
we
will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself,
just as He is pure” (1 Jn 2:28;3:2-3; cf. Mt 24:44-51;Lk 23:34-35; 1 Thess 5:2-4).
This is not a list to memorize, but a few examples of biblical guidelines to help decide
disputed issues. Many have found it a useful checklist to consult.
Christians convinced that Scripture’s clear teaching is violated must challenge the
position of those who do not see a question of right or wrong involved. But what does the
believer do when she is convinced that there is not an ethical issue involved? What if she has
diligently searched the Scriptures and investigated the issue from every feasible angle and
considers herself free in conscience on the matter, yet a fellow believer is convinced she is
doing wrong? What is her obligation to the “weaker brother”?
The free person’s response to the “bound.” Scripture teaches that Christians have
several obligations to those who have scruples about a matter.
Receiving and building up the other. Christians must receive brothers and sisters who
differ from them (Rom 14:1; 15:7), recognizing them as those of equal standing before the
Lord. Any tendency to put them down as ignorant, any show of friendliness in order to set
them straight, violates this biblical principle.
They must choose that which would build up their brothers and sisters and not what
would hurt or destroy them (Rom 14:13, 15-16, 19, 21; 1 Cor 8:1, 9-13; 10:23). For example,
some Christians may believe that drinking alcoholic beverages is legitimate, but their
drinking could lead other Christians to go against their own conscience and thus sin. If they
do this, they have become a stumbling block to these others—a hazard to their growth and
success as Christians. So they must refrain from drinking in their presence.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul describes a stronger brother attending a morally
neutral, nonreligious social event in Corinth—even though it happens to be at a pagan
temple. This was a festive event with good food. Though the believer has a moral right to be
there, Paul urges the stronger brother to show concern for the weaker brother’s spiritual well-
being and forgo this activity to protect him from falling back into paganism: “For if anyone
sees you who have knowledge eating [literally, reclining] in an idol’s temple, will he not be
encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?” ( 1 Cor 8:10 ESV).
[2] Freedom for me is not license to do what I please but strength to sacrifice my rights for the
welfare of others.
Not causing stumbling. Should the stronger refrain from engaging in certain morally
neutral acts only if it would lead someone into sin—to violate his conscience—or does this
extend to “offending” or upsetting a believer, even if he is nowhere near being led into sin?
Clearly, “cause to stumble” here means “influence or cause to sin” in violation of conscience
—something a “free” person should resolve never to do. What about simply being
“offended” at the stronger’s actions? The Pharisees were “offended” when Christ set aside
their tradition (Mt 15:12). They were unhappy and angry but were far from following his
example. Paul may have “offended” or upset Peter by challenging him about distorting the
gospel by excluding Gentile believers from table fellowship (Gal 2).
What if some believers might become upset by a neutral action by the stronger? Should
the stronger stir up strife and anger by asserting their rights (“liberty”) and “tweaking” fellow
believers to distress them or perhaps shake up what may be a touch of legalism? I (Paul)
recall a preaching class in seminary in which we were to dress up in—what else?—our
“Sunday best” when it was our turn to preach to the rest of the class. We were all shocked
when one seminarian showed up to preach in a sweat suit and tennis shoes, proclaiming that
he wanted to preach a message that was without hypocrisy—a not-so-subtle jab at the rest of
us who had followed the professor’s instructions. While he preached, I could not concentrate
on his message because I was so thoroughly distracted by the “sincerity” of his dress.
What if a visiting pastor wears a suit and tie on Sunday that would be appreciated by an
elderly congregation and does not inhibit the proclamation of the gospel or reaching people
for Christ or fostering spiritual growth? Going casual and thus ruffling feathers would hardly
seem necessary, nor would it be loving to “challenge the status quo” on this matter. The goal
of building up others will serve as a caution against unnecessarily “offending” as well (Mt
7:12; 22:39; Rom 14:15, 18; 15:2; 1 Cor 10:24, 28-33).
On the other hand, in some settings, a pastor wearing a robe or even suit and tie might
create barriers in becoming all things to all people to save some. Or when a church’s
insistence on a certain music style only addresses the concerns of its senior citizens but
discourages the next generation from attending and even drives its young people away, it is
time to review the church’s approach to ministry. Perhaps work out an arrangement that
seeks to address both concerns—with sacrifices made on the part of both generations? What
of blended worship with both biblically rich, engagingly sung hymns as well as
contemporary songs with biblical substance? We recognize, though, that not all official
“hymns” are necessarily theologically sound or musically appealing. On the other hand,
some contemporary “worship” looks more like performers at a rock concert rather than true
worship leaders who involve the entire congregation as a corporate priesthood in
“ministering to the Lord” (Acts 13:2).
Taking the greater burden. Are limits laid only on the “free” person, but not the “bound”
person? No, the law of love applies to both. The “bound” person must also act in love, not
needlessly laying her scruples on others or making demands that bind them to her
convictions—unless she believes the matter to be so serious that she must forbid others as
well as herself. The “free” person, however, cannot demand this kind of loving response
from the “bound” person. His only option is to continue lovingly and joyfully yielding until
the other lovingly chooses to release him.
The reason is easily understood. For the person who has convictions on a matter, to
compromise would be to violate her conscience, and that, according to Scripture, is sin. The
person who does not have convictions on the matter is free to yield his freedom without
violating his conscience. For weaker, right is at stake; for the stronger, only rights. Thus, the
motto for the truly free person is, “Let his conscience be my guide.”
Considering the cause of the gospel.No Christian should feel bound by the conscience
of every other Christian. If that were so, Paul could not have been “all things to all people”
in order to save some (1 Cor 9:22 ESV). Indeed, Paul’s approach reminds us that the
preferences of the weaker should be overruled when the gospel and the unbeliever’s
reconciliation with God are at stake.
This point is clearly illustrated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11-21).
The Lord had instructed Peter about not calling Gentiles “unclean”—like the soon-to-be
believer Cornelius. Through Christ, Gentiles were to be incorporated into the people of God
and so Peter should not call “unholy” what God has “cleansed” (Acts 10:10-16). Yet Peter
failed to display this acceptance of believing Gentiles in Antioch when a Jewish contingent
from James in Jerusalem came into town. To point out that God had freely accepted Gentiles
as well as Jews in Christ, Paul had to publicly rebuke Peter about his hypocrisy, which had
led astray even Paul’s own mentor, Barnabas. When the scruples or even preferences of the
weaker prohibit accepting other brothers or sisters in Christ or distort the gospel message,
Paul’s condemnation could not be more severe (Gal 1–2).
In this confrontation of consciences, Paul sought to keep the main thing the main thing.
We must go and do likewise. Many well-meaning Christians may erect barriers to the gospel
—that one must, say, believe in young-earth creationism or embrace a certain version of
Calvinism to be a “true Christian.” But these endeavors must be stiffly resisted so as not to
present obstacles to the gospel (“you must accept Jesus and young earth creationism”). That
is, one can be a true believer and not hold to a young earth or to Calvinism. The believer can
embrace these views without requiring that others hold them in order to be faithful believers.
Considering the other’s proximity. This voluntary binding of one’s own conduct by the
conscience of another only applies when the person who might be offended is close enough
to be offended. There is no obligation for us, who live in the southeastern United States and
are not even Amish, to dispose of all our neckties and remove all our buttons because some
Amish brothers in Pennsylvania think such are “worldly.” So, if the person with a “bound”
conscience is distant geographically or organizationally, he has no legitimate reason to be
personally offended, and the “free” person, who sees no ethical issue involved, should not
consider himself bound.
This principle of loving concern is, in the nature of the case, limited to those with a close
relationship. Examples of a responsible relationship would be, in descending order, members
of the same family, the same church, the same institution, friends and near neighbors.
In specific relationships, it may be the responsibility of the person who is strong in faith
and knows that there is no ethical issue involved to instruct the person who is bound by the
scruple. Paul did this when he sought to inform the conscience of the weak, instructing them
that the earth is the Lord’s and all it contains (1 Cor 8:1-3; 10:25-26; cf. Ps 24:1); so the
believer is fully free before the Lord to eat meat offered to idols. And this instruction can be
by word or action, depending on the importance of the issue and the level of one’s
responsibility. If the “free” person does not have a responsibility for the spiritual
development of the person, she should simply respond in love, giving up her rights for the
sake of the other person.
A guest speaker in a King James Version–only congregation does not necessarily have a
pastoral duty to enlighten the congregation on the benefit of some translation other than
the KJV. Though he may feel free to use other translations, why stir up potential strife and
possibly hinder communication? But in matters of personal responsibility—the parent of a
minor, the pastor of a church or the teacher in school—the person who is strong in faith must
work to free those with scruples on these sorts of issues. For example, as theological
educators, we have taught students about the nature and validity of various Bible translations,
which ones are stronger than others, and why.
Both the “free” person and the “bound” person must consciously choose in favor of that
which makes for peace—a vital kingdom value; we ought to be more preoccupied with peace
and joy in the Spirit than we are with the likes of eating and drinking (Rom 14:16-17, 19,
20; 15:5-6; 1 Cor 3:17; Eph 4:3; Col 3:14). Peace in God’s family is an extremely high value
—though we should not pursue peace at the expense of truth. The key to matters of
conscience lies less with the bound person than the free person, who can more readily
sacrifice some of his rights in pursuit of peace, though not his conscience and commitment to
truth: right, no; rights, yes. On the part of the free person, he can sacrifice some of his rights
without undermining his conscience. But compromise on the part of the bound person would
violate his conscience, and this he cannot do.
The response of the “bound” person. What of those who are bound in conscience on a
certain matter but find that others do not consider the matter an ethical issue? Perhaps they
begin to suspect that their inhibitions are not of a moral nature after all. What should they
do?
Of course, the believer’s first commitment is to obey God: “For whatever does not
proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23 RSV). Beyond this, she cannot behave as a free
person on the issue until her conscience itself is free. This comes through studying and
reflecting on Scripture and observing the lives of godly believers in other settings. Many
Christians are bound by scruples that are not scriptural, and this can have a negative impact
on them and those around them.
We have seen that the conscience is something of a moral alarm system that should not be
ignored or suppressed (Amos 1–2). On the other hand, the conscience can also be partly
misshapen or skewed by misguided parental, cultural and religious influences. Some of us
are familiar with moralizing Christian subcultures and damning sermons on the wrongs of
rock music, movies and playing cards—what John Stott has called “microethics.” But the
conscience needs proper and constant reprogramming and renewal through attending to
God’s Word and walking by his Spirit (Rom 12:2).
And like the “free” believer, the “bound” believer must accept the person who thinks
differently (Rom 15:7). He must do so without judging him as an inferior (Rom 14:4). He
must likewise act in love, preserve peace and not needlessly harangue believers who think
differently.
Also like the strong in conscience, the weaker party’s responsibility to help a fellow
Christian understand the issue will depend on their relationship. The weaker ones must, of
course, act on what they believe to be right. But when it comes to others, the responsibility
ranges from that of parents holding their children to biblical standards as they understand
them, to the lesser responsibility of pastors teaching the truth as they see it while recognizing
that other believers may fairly disagree, to no responsibility at all for those who are unrelated
to them.
For both parties, the responsibility is twofold: first, to understand Scripture with ever
greater clarity, and second, to obey God’s will wholly. Learning and godliness—or
learning in pursuit of godliness—must be the goal of both, not simply the weak in
conscience.
Further Reading
Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural
Setting. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community. New
York: HarperOne, 2009.
Copan, Victor A. St. Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Concept of the Imitation
of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction. Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008.
Mouw, Richard J. Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
34Knowing God’s Will In Matters Not Revealed in
Scripture
All Scripture is profitable for wise living and the pursuit of Christlikeness ( 2 Tim 3:16-
17), and this guidance is available to all human beings who have access to the Bible. But
beyond this revealed general will does God have an individual will for each believer? Or
does he simply will that we obey him, be like him, and for the rest of it do as we please? If
God has a custom-designed plan for each believer, does it extend beyond the major directions
of life such as one’s vocation? Does it extend also to the incidental activities of a single day?
Introducing the Issue
First of all, the emphasis of Scripture concerning the will of God deals with what is
clearly revealed for all. Guidance into wise thinking and behavior is the common emphasis
(Ps 25:8-15; 32:8; 73:23-26). God’s will for us is to live holy lives (1 Thess 4:3). The Lord’s
guidance as our shepherd is to direct us into “paths of righteousness” (Ps 23:1-3). And to be
transformed into Christ’s image is a lifelong pursuit (Phil 3:12-14). Being is more important
than doing, character more than command following, and our vocation as kings and priests
more than our location (see 1 Cor 12:31–13:3).
As believers, we are called to participate in Christ’s mission to the world: “As the Father
has sent me, I am sending you” (Jn 20:21 NIV; cf. Lk 4:18-21). The mission of the church
involves colaboring with God to carry out all it is called to do in the world: engaging in
global and local evangelism, service, proclamation of God’s Word, worship, bringing relief
to the poor and freedom to the oppressed, and so on.
But what of the specifics—vocation, marriage, education, location, healing, finances?
Does God have a specific purpose for each person? If he does, is it possible to know God’s
will in such matters and consciously follow it? Garry Friesen’s influential book Decision
Making and the Will of God devotes more than four hundred pages to prove the thesis that
God does not have an individual will or uniquely designed life plan for each believer—there
is no “individual will of God” for each believer.[1] If a decision is within God’s moral will, it
is acceptable to God. The believer is free when it comes to “nonmoral” decision making.
We can agree with two of Friesen’s correctives to the oft-abused “traditional” view. First,
Scripture is primarily concerned with moral and spiritual guidance, with becoming more like
Christ and living wisely. Second, the traditional concept of guidance has been seriously
abused. Yet swinging the pendulum from dogmatic subjectivism (“the Lord told me”) to the
opposite extreme of what appears more like autonomous rationalism is not the appropriate
corrective. It is, indeed, much easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of
biblical tension.
No reputable biblical scholar would advocate the abuses of divine guidance cited in
Friesen’s book. And even decades before Friesen’s book, A. W. Tozer said much the same
thing: “Except for those things that are specifically commanded or forbidden, it is God’s will
that we be free to exercise our own intelligent choice In almost everything touching our
common life on earth God is pleased when we are pleased God’s choice for us may not
be one but any one of a score of possible choices.”[2]
Perhaps part of the popularity of this approach is not so much due to a dissatisfaction
with abuses of “intuitionism” (a “word from the Lord”) and attitudes of infallibility about
“God’s plan for your life,” even down to its minute details. But a deeper reason may lie
behind it—namely, a shift in interest from the clear demands of Scripture such as world
evangelization (Mt 28:18-19) or a life of self-denial (Mt 16:24) in favor of a quest for
personal autonomy and fulfillment. While Friesen emphasizes attending God’s general
demands in Scripture, this may have the unintended consequence of catering to our culture’s
individualism and the pursuit of personal fulfillment.
But is this not a heavy price to pay for freedom? Does this approach not create a sense of
insecurity—as though God doesn’t really care about momentous decisions in my life—about
where to attend university, whom to marry or which job to choose? The psychological
question, however, must give way to the truth of the matter. Does Scripture tell us?
The Case for Divine Guidance
We propose four lines of argument from Scripture that reinforce the traditional view that
God does indeed have a plan for each of us, a preference about many of the choices we make
and a commitment to bring about his special purpose in each life.
Divine guidance, according to the traditional view, is one of the Christian’s deepest needs
and highest privileges. What is the biblical evidence?
The general tenor of Scripture. The general tenor of both Testaments would lead even
the casual observer to believe that God has an interest in the nonmoral choices of his people
and that he goes to great lengths to see that his will on these details is carried out. What
difference did it make where Israel encamped? And yet God gave both supernatural guidance
through the pillar of cloud and fire and also the very natural wisdom of an expert human
guide. How could it matter whom Isaac married, so long as it was one of the same faith? Yet
God went to extraordinary lengths to guide Abraham’s servant to a particular girl (Gen 24).
These are not isolated instances; Scripture is replete with reports of God’s guidance in
nonmoral matters.
In Christ’s life, certain anticipated—indeed, inevitable—events had to wait their time: we
read that his “time” or “hour” had “not yet come” (e.g., Jn 2:4; 7:8, 30; 8:20). We see also
that Jesus “had to pass through Samaria” (Jn 4:4), and he delayed a couple of days before
visiting the tomb of the very dead Lazarus, but with a view to displaying God’s glory in
raising him to life (Jn 11:1-45). His food was to do his Father’s will (Jn 4:34), and he did
nothing apart from that will (Jn 5:19-20, 30; 8:28). He was constantly guided by the Spirit
(e.g., Mt 4:1) and was sensitive to God’s timing for each phase of his life as it unfolded. Was
such planning only for the divine Son of God, or does he in this, as in so many other things,
serve as our model, demonstrating by his responses that God put him here on purpose and
that his whole life was devoted to fulfilling that purpose?
The Bible gives the unbiased observer the strong impression that the examples are
chosen, not only (or even always) for their special significance in the plan of redemption, but
also as windows on God’s way of doing things. And when Saul cried out on the road to
Damascus, “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10), Jesus informed him of his new vocation as
an apostle to the Gentiles—and not of a general list of moral laws he was violating. Nor are
these specific purposes simply for some “elite” class in God’s kingdom, but for all.
God’s sovereign purpose. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are crucial
doctrines for understanding guidance, but reconciling them has been a great source of
confusion and controversy. Scripture is clear that God is in charge and knows where he is
going. Even pictures of God’s seeming “surprise” at human decisions or “changing his mind”
reflect a certain “humanized” (anthropomorphic) language to reflect the dynamic of divine-
human engagement as well as the seriousness with which God takes human choices.[3] But
Paul states with crystal clarity that God “works all things after the counsel of His will” ( Eph
1:11). And while Scripture nowhere speaks of human “free will,” it assumes that humans are
fully responsible for the choices they make and that in certain things they may act freely
(e.g., Acts 5:4).
We must take care not to pit one side—divine sovereignty or human choice—over against
the other. A promising attempt to bring both of these together is known as the “middle
knowledge” or Molinistic view, which is named after the sixteenth-century
theologian/philosopher Luis de Molina. He argues that God by his very nature knows the
choices moral creatures would freely make in any possible world in which they were created.
For example, God knows that the inhabitants of Keilah would turn David over to Saul if
David were to remain there with his men (1 Sam 23:12-13); so after finding this out, David
leaves before this can be done. Or God knows that the Israelites would lose heart at the
prospects of war if they went by the northerly “way of the land of the Philistines” ( Ex 13:16-
17). In light of such innate divine knowledge, God creates the actual world, through which
his sovereign purposes are accomplished without overriding human freedom.[4] But however
sovereignty and freedom are related, the integrity of God’s sovereign will on the one hand
and human responsibility on the other must be maintained simultaneously.
As we put our trust in Christ for salvation, we identify with God’s sovereign plan: God
initiates salvation and seeks out human beings through the influence of his Spirit while we
respond by receiving that gift. However, we can also resist the influence of God’s Spirit
(Acts 7:51) or perhaps grieve the Spirit or stifle what he desires to do (Eph 4:30; 1 Thess
5:19). The same applies to evangelism or financially contributing to the advancement of
God’s kingdom, in which we become part of the fulfillment of God’s sovereign purposes for
other persons (Acts 1:8; Lk 16:9; cf. 1 Cor 3:7-8). We pray because a foreknowing God is
able to work through freely offered prayers to bring about what otherwise may not have
taken place (Jas 4:2-3; 5:16). We pray and evangelize in faith, even though we do not know
how God will finally work out his purposes. God desires that certain things take place—
namely, the salvation of all persons (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; cf. 2 Pet 2:1) or submission to
God’s purposes (Lk 7:30)—even if these are not finally realized.
Why should we suppose that guidance would be any different? In even seemingly small
choices, we find that our actions are interwoven into the tapestry of God’s overarching
purposes. Think of Pharoah’s daughter finding and adopting Moses—a momentous event that
would lead to the exodus and the formation of Israel as a nation. Or in recent history,
consider how a chauffer’s innocent wrong turn onto a dead-end street in Sarajevo led to the
assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, which led to the unleashing of World War I—
which influenced the outbreak of the Russian Revolution—and then Germany’s humiliating
defeat, the punitive measures in the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s rise to power in Germany
and his leading the German nation to initiate World War II, and so it goes.
We humans have the privilege of being led in participation in God’s divine plan; and even
when we err, God will even then work all things together for his glory and our ultimate good
(Rom 8:28). We can find hope and encouragement that we trust in God—not in ourselves and
our own judgments about his hidden purposes—and that he will accomplish all that he
intends in his overarching purposes, despite human resistance and mistaken choices.
Knowing this is a critical first step to understanding God’s guidance—and to understanding
the nature of prayer.
The nature of prayer. Prayer is a primary means for us to receive from God his promised
wisdom and power as well as the needed resources to accomplish his purposes in the world
(cf. Jas 1:5; 5:16). And God’s people are frequently requesting guidance from God: “teach
me,” “guide me” and “lead me” are frequent prayers or even assumptions in the Psalms
(e.g., Ps 5:8; 25:5; 27:11; 86:11; 48:14; 73:24; cf. Ps 25:12; 48:14). God’s people throughout
Scripture trust in God’s promises to guide and direct them, and they pray for this.
The role of the Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit includes the task of guidance.
Indeed, the Lord “does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets”
(Amos 3:7 NIV), and he communicated his purposes through various means (Heb 1:1). In the
new covenant age, God grants visions and dreams and prophecies to his people ( Acts 2:17; 1
Thess 5:20). And of course, through the Spirit’s leading of the disciples into all truth (Jn
14:16-26), we have guidance from the apostolic community in the pages of the New
Testament.
Also through the Spirit, each believer has gifts imparted as the Spirit wills so that all may
serve in building up the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:7, 31; 14:1, 39). And we participate through
prayer in discovering and implementing his will—“earnestly desire the higher gifts,” said
Paul (1 Cor 12:31 RSV). While Scripture’s emphasis on guidance is often moral, many
passages also refer to nonmoral personal guidance. Psalm 139 illustrates personal guidance
—that God is ever with David and “will lead” him (Ps 139:10) throughout all the “days
ordained” for him. And even if the guidance is in some instances corporate rather than
personal, it is in many instances not solely moral guidance (Ps 48:14). And we are familiar
with the oft-cited promise that, through fully trusting and knowing God intimately, “he will
make straight your paths” (Prov 3:5-6 RSV). What is more, God prohibits seeking guidance
through mediums and spiritists (Is 8:19). And in both Testaments, the divine Shepherd cares
for his sheep and leads them day by day (e.g., Ps 23; 77:20; 78:52, 72; Jn 10). In the context
of practical matters related to financial challenges, James exhorts people to ask for wisdom
from God with single-minded devotion—which is to be “pure in heart”—rather than with
double-minded allegiance to the world and God (Jas 1:5-6; 4:8; cf. Mt 5:8).
These four lines of biblical teaching reinforce the conviction that God does have a plan
for each of his children: the general tenor of Scripture as seen in the lives of biblical
characters, the pervasive teaching that God has a sovereign purpose in all things, the nature
of prayer and the role of the Holy Spirit.
So how do we “make wise choices” or “discover the will of God”?
Pleasing God in the Choices of Life
The directed life. How does one come to know God’s will in matters not revealed in
Scripture? Perhaps Proverbs 3:5-6 is the clearest passage in Scripture concerning guidance
along life’s footpaths with their various challenges—but only for those who “trust in
the LORD”; this means that they “do not lean on [their] own understanding.” Their lives are
characterized by surrender to God (“trust . . . lean”) and by personally drawing near to God
(“acknowledge Him” has the sense of “know Him intimately”). Trusting God leads to a
deeper knowledge of God. As a result, God directs our paths (cf. also Prov 16:9).
In other words, if we meet these conditions of active, intentional trust and obedience, we
will indeed be doing the will of God. Our heart attitude must first be right, and subsequent
guidance is God’s responsibility! Again, we cite the late singer Keith Green: “Just keep doing
your best, and pray that it’s blessed, and . . . He’ll take care of the rest!” If my heart is right,
God will actually direct my life—in large areas such as marriage and vocation as well as
incidental footpaths as well. And rather than having a marked roadmap for our entire lives,
we move forward trustingly and “keep in step with the Spirit” (Gal 5:25 NIV).
While the path may at times appear inscrutable, we can receive directions from God
through certain resources he provides.
Receiving directions: Understanding the will of God. Scripture. As we look to the
example and teachings of Christ, the exhortations of the apostles, the saintly sages’ poems
and proverbs, and the stories spanning the Scriptures, we gain insight into the biblical “way
of wisdom.” Through them, we come to discern the fullest available picture of God’s will for
us. Although Paul speaks of the Old Testament’s wisdom for life, the same applies to the
New Testament as well: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be
adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Prayer. The second principle is to actively seek God’s will in prayer. “If any of you lacks
wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously” (Jas 1:5). To ask God for his will
in any choice (wisdom) does not mean that we ask him once and then let it drop. The clear
teaching of Scripture is that we are to keep on asking (Mt 7:7) if we really expect to receive
an answer. This is what Paul did when he sought the Lord for healing on three occasions. In
this case the will of God, which was finally revealed to him, was that he should not be healed
(2 Cor 12:8-9).
Prayer is not only required for obtaining wisdom as we make decisions; it is especially
necessary to ask for strength to do God’s will—and submitting to it even in the face of
testing and difficulty (Mt 26:37-44). At its very root, true prayer must ultimately express the
petition, “Your will be done.” Prayer requires a willingness—indeed, a commitment—to do
God’s will (Jn 7:17), and it typically requires persistence in asking, seeking and knocking
(Mt 7:7-11). Why should the believer expect further guiding light from God if he is unwilling
to do God’s will?
Furthermore, the believer ought to cultivate a spirit of prayer and intentionally “set
the LORD continually before” him (Ps 16:8). Paul exhorts believers to “pray without ceasing”
(1 Thess 5:17). In his day-to-day and moment-to-moment activities, Brother Lawrence
“practiced the presence of God.” More recently, Frank Laubach (1884–1970), a missionary
to the Philippines, cultivated an ongoing inner conversation with God. In such
a conversation, the will of God becomes more apparent as we cultivate the discipline and joy
of moment-by-moment prayer.
Thus, prayer is not only important in seeking God to make his will more clearly known to
us but also to cultivate a deepened willingness to do God’s will ( Heb 10:7; cf. Ps 40:8). Thus
prayer for guidance is focused on the following requests:
1. For faith that God will keep his promise and direct the affairs of my life to the full
accomplishment of his purposes.
2. For strength to obey his will no matter what the personal cost.
3. For wisdom to understand scriptural teaching and the circumstances of life that
impinge on the decision.
The church. Given the American solo-flying, lone-ranger mentality, an often neglected
factor in discerning God’s will is the word or voice of the church. In matters affecting the life
of the church and even as individuals, we detect a biblical pattern of unitedly seeking the
mind of the Spirit (e.g., Acts 13:2-3; 15:22-28; 16:10). The Jerusalem council in Acts
15 discussed, examined the Scriptures and prayed concerning outreach to the Gentiles in
light of the Mosaic law. The course of action they chose “seemed good to the apostles and
elders” and “to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28). Throughout the Old Testament, we see
special times of corporate fasting and prayer undertaken by Israel. In Proverbs, wise advisers
are important in successful decision making (Prov 15:22; see also Prov
11:14; 12:15; 19:20; 20:5, 18; 24:6).
Of course, we should seek the advice of godly, wise believers on spiritual matters. But we
should also take care to confer about technical or professional matters with experts in their
field—whether Christians or not. It is no credit to us to seek out a medical doctor who
happens to be a fine believer but is inexperienced or less-informed than her peers.
Furthermore, we should seek as objective a judgment as possible, which often means
conferring with a disinterested party not related to the problem or concern. Moreover, we
should not seek one who is considered “soft” and who might be expected to concur with us
in the easy solution we may want. Some people keep “counseling around” until they find the
answer they want. A professing Christian woman whom I (Paul) know desperately desired
emotional and sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex, and rather than listening to
trusted believers who would frankly disagree with her, she sought out certain “spiritual
counselors” who were sympathetic to her cause and desires.
After a person has studied the Scriptures for principles that bear on the issue, prayed
earnestly and consulted the church (in matters appropriate for church consultation), and he
still does not have a clear indication of the will of God, what next?
Reason. If it is a decision that cannot wait, make an intelligent choice and act with trust in
God. “Direction” is promised whether “directions” have come through clearly or not. God
will incorporate this in his purpose for us,[5] or he will certainly deflect us into another course
of action.
If we are walking with God in obedience, saturating our minds in the will of God as
revealed in Scripture, we may simply make a decision, and whatever we do will be the will
of God for us. If it is not, he has assumed the responsibility to (re)direct us. Psalm 32:8-
9 offers important insights:
I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go;
I will counsel you with My eye upon you.
Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding,
Whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check,
Otherwise they will not come near to you.
We see that God’s instructing and teaching and guiding us includes our making
responsible, wise and mature decisions—unlike horses and mules that require an owner to
constantly direct them. As we trust in God, we can act with confidence that he is keeping his
promise to direct our paths.
Not to use our minds (for example, making a “pros and cons” list in the decision-making
process) is to ignore one of God’s marvelous gifts. Anti-intellectualism is antispiritual. We
are to love God with all of our mind (Mt 22:37) and be transformed by the renewal of our
mind (Rom 12:2). No wonder Luke writes that “it seemed good to the apostles and elders” at
the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:22)—a corporate mental judgment. Indeed, we reason about
our circumstances: “If all other job opportunities are closed and I must provide for my
family, I will have to take this one.” We reason about our own spiritual gifts and natural
endowments from God; we reason about our past experiences and present opportunities.
What about taking personality tests, going through a spiritual gifts inventory, and seeking out
other ways of evaluating how best to move forward in a job or vocation? Though these are
optional, they are fully compatible with a biblical approach to making choices in the will of
God.
John Wesley’s “quadrilateral” looked not only to Scripture as the primary source of
spiritual guidance, it also took seriously tradition, experience and reason. Indeed, we should
seriously consider our own Christian heritage and the richness of our traditions that have
stood believers in good stead. We can learn valuable lessons from church history and reading
about the experiences of our godly Christian forbears. We can read their journals and their
reflections about how they lived before God, the decisions they made, the challenges they
faced.
Again, when we do not know clearly how to proceed and yet are pressed to make a
decision, we must prayerfully do so, using our best judgment (both individually and with
godly Christian counsel), and leave the results up to the Lord. In some cases we may need to
take the route of the disciples as they selected a successor to Judas. They found two qualified
persons (who had been with Jesus from the very beginning of his ministry and were
witnesses to his resurrection), committed the matter to prayer, cast lots and left the outcome
to God (Acts 1:15-26). A friend of mine (Paul’s) told me the story of a young pastor, who had
to decide between two congregations to shepherd. After much prayer and reflection, looking
at the pros and cons, and conferring with others, he still could not decide. He called his
father, a seasoned pastor, about how he should proceed. His father said, “If you have done all
you can and cannot clearly discern how to decide, then like the disciples in Acts 1, entrust
the results of a coin flip to God.”
Parents must physically guide every step of the infant, but guidance gradually changes till
the teenager comes to be led more by principles instilled and counsel requested; only in
emergencies does the parent intervene. Likewise, the longer a believer has saturated his mind
in the teachings of Scripture and the longer he has intimately companioned with the Guide
himself, the more trustworthy becomes his spiritual judgment. Of course, God may give a
special experience to the most mature saint as well. But ordinarily we are responsible to
make the choices of life according to our best judgment. That judgment might be called, in
biblical terms, wisdom.
As finite sinners, we do what we can with the limited resources we have. A person can
prayerfully choose a seemingly well-suited partner, but may find hidden challenges because
that spouse has been sexually abused or may become mentally unstable through the loss of a
child years later. So we should speak in terms of “a good choice” or “the best option” rather
than “the right way” or “guaranteed success.”
If our decision proves to be a dead end, we need not be embarrassed or blame God. We
can learn valuable lessons and become more like Christ through the frustrations and cul-de-
sacs of life. Without clear indications of divine guidance, plans made in the ordinary events
of life should be made in pencil! James exhorted ancient entrepreneurial disciples to say, “If
the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that” (Jas 4:15). We can make our plans, but
the Lord sovereignly directs our steps (Prov 16:9). Despite the murkiness of the future from
our own vantage point, we can move forward confidently, trusting in God who has promised
to guide and preserve us, even through deep valleys, fiery trials and turbulent waters ( Ps
23:4; Is 43:2).
Inner conviction. After the decision has been made in the light of scriptural teaching,
prayerful contemplation, consultation with responsible spiritual leaders, and careful
consideration of the circumstances, we will often find that God gives an inner confidence and
peace and quiet conviction that he is pleased (Phil 4:7-9; cf. Jn 14:27; 2 Cor 6:10). Some say
that this inner intuition is not part of guidance. But this reasoning seems strange to us.
Of course, biblical writers were “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). But the gift of
prophecy—the act of reporting what God brings to mind—is a sign of the new covenant era,
which extends to the second coming, when we “shall know fully” and see Christ “face to
face” (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Cor 13:8-12; 11:5; 14:1; etc.). The gift of prophecy—unlike finally
authoritative Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah or New Testament apostles
such as Paul and Peter—requires “weighing” or “sifting” and is subject to apostolic authority
(1 Cor 14:37). Even though the prophet Agabus had successfully predicted a famine in
Jerusalem (Acts 11:28), he seems to have added his own detail to a Spirit-inspired prophecy
when he said Paul shouldn’t go to Jerusalem (contra Acts 20:22-23). If he did, he would be
bound by the Jews and turned over to the Gentiles (Acts 21:10-11), but it was actually the
Gentiles who imprisoned Paul there (Acts 21:23-24).[6]
Also, the Spirit’s work in the world includes his convicting people of sin (Jn 16:8-11) and
“cutting [them] to the heart” (Acts 2:37 RSV). Though God opened a door to preach the
gospel in Troas, Paul “still had no peace of mind” because Titus was not there; so he went on
to Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12-13 NIV). These are common indicators of the Spirit’s inner
workings within ordinary human beings. These heart promptings are basic divine guidance
and direction.
Such inner impulses should not be mistaken for the infallible voice of God; these may
often reflect our own preferences more than they do God’s will. But, consulted along with
the more substantial methods of guidance, inner convictions are certainly a valid part of
determining the course of action that most pleases the Lord.
While peace often accompanies obedience to divine guidance, this does not mean that we
will feel good about it when it may conflict with our natural desires. Assurance often follows.
But even if not, one must reconsider how twice Paul and his team did not have such
assurance or their circumstances challenged their initial decision they made traveling to Asia
Minor and Mysia (Acts 16:6-10). This serves as a reminder that no one is infallible at
discovering God’s will, and that stepping forward with God requires humility. Trusting God
to guide us may require that we adjust our choices as we follow the will of God. An unsettled
spirit may point us in the direction of an alternative course of action. God can engineer our
circumstances so as to direct us toward the right course of action.
How can we distinguish between the intimations of the Holy Spirit and our own feelings?
As Scripture does not answer this question, we assume that it is not important to do so. When
the time comes to act, we should simply act in faith in the light of our understanding of the
circumstances and leave the results to God. For many of the ordinary choices of life, we
simply should go ahead and do what we are disposed to do (Acts 5:4; 1 Cor 10:27). In other
words, God expects us to do what we prefer on most occasions.
Perhaps our own personal testimonial would be appropriate here. In the ordinary choices
we must constantly make throughout each day, we just “do what comes next.” When the
decision is obviously important for the future course of our lives, of others or of God’s work,
we usually pause to pray or, when others are involved, invite them to pray with us. Often in a
deadlocked committee meeting, when we pause to pray, things come clear. But for the most
part we simply use our judgment, trying to take into account any biblical principles that
might inform the issue, make a decision, and act.
In the major decisions of life or when our circumstances become baffling in their
complexity, we take several days to fast and pray about these matters. The primary objective
is companionship with God, and these times have never failed to prove an unforgettable
experience. But they are also very practical, not merely some ineffable mystical experience.
We read extensively in Scripture, prayerfully meditating on its implications for us and
affirming our eagerness to obey. All the while we evaluate the circumstances of our lives,
including a fresh look at strengths and weaknesses, past failures and successes, future hopes
and dreams, opportunities and limitations. Robertson has written out on paper his “stream of
consciousness”—his judgment concerning each aspect of his circumstances and how they fit
together or fail to fit, especially with what God says in Scripture; and gradually things begin
to come together, a light begins to suffuse the dimness and confusion of his thinking, and a
clear judgment concerning the next step begins to emerge. We both have been able to step
out with a sense of confidence that God has done it again, opening a way for us and keeping
his promise to direct our steps to walk in the way that pleases him.
Dangers to Avoid
Subjectivism.Christian psychologist James Dobson tells the story of a hunch he had on
the day he received his doctoral degree from UCLA as he returned home. He writes: “Then,
as I turned a corner (I remember the precise spot), I was seized by a strong impression which
conveyed this unmistakable message: ‘You are going to lose someone very close to you
within the next 12 months. A member of your immediate family will die, but when it
happens, don’t be dismayed. Just continue trusting and depending on Me.’” A year passed,
which turned into ten, but still no deaths in the family.[7]
The fact that certain hunches or impressions prove false doesn’t mean that God can’t
inspire thoughts or ideas in our minds to guide us (e.g., Neh 2:12; Ezra 7:27). One influential
Christian said that when he had doubts while at university, he would get some rest and his
doubts would dissipate. Indeed, we may have difficulty in distinguishing between the
impulse of the Spirit and the response of our emotions that may reflect fatigue, illness, or
cultural or personal preferences. A mere inner impulse is not itself a legitimate basis for
decision making. As G. Allen Fleece, former president of Columbia International University,
once said, “Even gamblers have hunches. When you come to me and say, ‘I feel led . . .’ I
respond, ‘So does that gambler.’”
A young man who had come to faith in Christ after leaving his wife and child came to me
(Robertson) for counsel. He had stopped attending church because, according to him, the
Lord gave him all the wisdom he needed through the Holy Spirit and fellowship with a
friend. He took up with a non-Christian girl and, after living with her for some time, asked
the Lord what his will was. He learned through “prophecy” that he was to stay with her, that
they were to be life partners. The girl became pregnant but so far had not accepted his
invitation to “believe in Jesus.” Living in direct violation of several clear biblical directives,
he “knew” God’s will with no church, no Bible, not much prayer—just “revelation.”
Feelings or impressions can be used by God, but it is wrong to give them ultimate
authority in one’s life. They are not ultimately decisive. A pilot friend told me (Robertson)
that when he is in a cloud and cannot see, the worst thing is for him to trust his own instincts.
He can be flying in a vertical bank and feel like he is flying level. It is absolutely essential
that a pilot trust his instruments and fly by them alone although he may feel very
uncomfortable about doing so. So in the dark, uncertain times of life we must rely on the
instrument panel of Scripture.
Rationalism. The opposite danger is total reliance on our own reasoning without relying
on guidance through the direction of the Word and the Spirit. Rationalism is an inadequate
approach because it relies on a believer’s autonomous reason, just as intuitionism relies on a
believer’s autonomous feeling.
Magic. We use “magic” to describe the view of guidance where a person acts only when
she perceives some apparent supernatural manifestation to indicate God’s will. While God
does often act supernaturally,[8] this should not be treated as a normative or ordinary means of
guidance. It is indeed extraordinary! And we certainly have heard our share of stories about
people using Scripture in this magical way; they randomly select a verse here and there,
independent of the author’s intention and the context, and it operates more like a sanitized
Ouija board or reading tea leaves randomly arranged in the bottom of your cup.
Others in their daily reading of Scripture expect “biblical confirmation” before making a
decision—that is, a verse must speak directly to the situation about which they are praying.
But for one to take the verse “You have stayed long enough at this mountain” (Deut 1:6) as
an indication to move from Denver, Colorado to the Midwest or Florida is mistaken. This
“word from God” bears no relationship to the intent of the biblical author and its normative
use—even if God may accommodate human frailty in allowing an immature believer to find
his direction in this way. And why magically depend on the Bible? Why not claim God’s
intervention through discovering a similar parallel in some novel or newspaper report?
Some will appeal to Gideon’s example of “laying out a fleece” (Judg 6:36-40) as a means
of discerning God’s will. The problem with this approach is that, apart from the text not
furnishing any authoritative commendation, God had already given Gideon plenty of
indications of what to do, confirmed by other signs. Nevertheless, God once more graciously
accommodated his lack of faith.
A young couple, each from a tragic home situation, was having an exceedingly stormy
courtship. Their immaturity and emotional instability boiled over in my (Robertson’s)
presence as they came for counsel as to whether they should be married. The man expected
unequivocal obedience even then in their semi-engaged state, and the woman was still in
love with another man with whom she had periodically cohabited. I counseled caution, but a
week later they came with the announcement that God had revealed they should be married.
“We asked God to show us in the Bible reasons why we should not be married by the end of
the week, and if he didn’t, we would know it was his will for us to be married.” Truly, there
is no limit to the ingenious tests one can put to God to achieve what one wants with apparent
divine approval.
Mere “open doors” are not necessary indicators of God’s guidance. What if there are
several open doors? Very evident supernatural intervention may sometimes be part of God’s
guidance, but one should not insist on this as a normative pattern. Unusual events in
themselves are insufficient to establish God’s will in the matter.
Though most circumstances are inconclusive of God’s will, some are conclusive—at
least for the time being. If the girl turns you down, the company lays you off, the church
doesn’t issue a call, these are clear indications of whom not to marry or where not to work.
Positive circumstances may indicate the will of God: a miraculous healing or deliverance
from accidental death certainly indicates that God still has something in mind for you to do.
But for the most part, circumstances alone, either “miraculous” or ordinary, should
not determine a choice, though, as we have seen, they do properly figure in the choice.
Infallibility. Those thinking they can consistently achieve absolute certainty in judging
their next course of action subject themselves to great frustration. If their choice proves
successful, they will be reinforced in the arrogance of their own infallibility—and if wrong,
they may bear the “guilt” of having failed God. Not even Paul assumed infallibility in the
ordinary decisions of life. He knew well that “we see in a mirror dimly” ( 1 Cor 13:12). And
as we saw in Acts 16, Paul attempted to go to Asia Minor and then Mysia and was thwarted,
but God led him to Macedonia instead.
On the other hand, a side benefit of realizing that our judgments and decisions are not
infallible is not only the release from arrogance on the one hand or guilt on the other, but also
freedom to make corrective decisions. As my (Robertson’s) father said, God’s will for me is
always in the present. Instead of being handicapped in the present by “vain regrets over past
failures,” a young man in a bad marital match must recognize that now that he is married,
this is God’s will for him and that he can, if his attitude is right, still find God’s peace,
whatever his problems may be.[9]
Trivialization. Another misuse of guidance is to trivialize it, which can run in two
directions. Either no choices may be considered the single will of God in the matter (we
discussed this above)—or every little choice in life can be exalted to a will-of-God class
decision. On the latter, it does not honor the sovereign Lord to insist on discovering “God’s
one-and-only will” in every incidental choice of life. Someone I (Paul) knew would pray
about which ice cream flavor to pick out of the thirty-one flavors at Baskin-Robbins. Some
people pray about what color of clothes to wear. While this may seem “spiritual,” it is not an
idea derived from Scripture, which allows latitude here. The Israelites were told they could
eat whatever they desired (Deut 12:15, 20-21). Peter told Ananias that he could have done
what he wanted with his property while he owned it (Acts 5:4). Paul told the Corinthians, “If
one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you
without asking questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Cor 10:27). On this verse, Elisabeth Elliot
comments: “Paul took the whole thing very casually. It could happen any day, and, like
crossing the street, it might be dangerous. But Paul was writing to Christians, and he assumes
that if they went, they went with God. It was nothing to pray and fast over.”[10] To treat every
choice as one that must have positive direction may have the appearance of magnifying
God’s role, but it actually trivializes it and is not in conformity with the instruction of
Scripture, nor with the behavior of any biblical character.
Irresponsible deferring to others. It is possible to seek guidance in an attempt to avoid
responsibility for my own choices. While some self-confident believers may presumptuously
or even arrogantly rush ahead of God (Jas 4:13-14), less confident persons may be tempted
to pull back from advancing God’s purposes instead of “looking for and hastening the
coming of the day of God” (2 Pet 3:12). Each of us will be held accountable for the way we
have used kingdom opportunities (Mt 25; Lk 12:36-48; 1 Cor 3:10-15).
Privatization. The opposite abuse, in keeping with our modern emphasis on personal
autonomy and individualism, is the total privatization of decision making: my decisions are
my own private business. We have already considered the necessary role of the church and
the counsel of others in decision making—the corporate element of guidance. Proverbs 1–
8 repeatedly appeals to “my son” to listen to the counsel of experienced, godly parents in
order to walk in the way of wisdom and avoid the path of death (Prov 1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1;
etc.). Indeed, how many tragic marriages might have been averted if such seasoned advice
were more often heeded! On the other hand, balance is needed, as a couple is forging their
own path in life (Gen 2:24) and thus must not abdicate personal responsibility to parents.
We have reviewed various hazards concerning decision making in the will of God. Each
one reflects a legitimate element in guidance, which should not be emphasized to the neglect
of others. And God is concerned about personal guidance and his purposes for each one of
us, and he promises to guide those whose hearts are obedient and trusting. Perhaps the
following summary on divine guidance from the famed George Müller, who had an
unusually effective ministry at an orphanage in Bristol, England, and in global missions, will
still prove helpful. How I Ascertain the Will of God
1. Surrender your own will. I seek at the beginning to get my heart into such a state that
it has no will of its own in regard to a given matter. Nine-tenths of the trouble with people is
just here. Nine-tenths of the difficulties are overcome when our hearts are ready to do the
Lord’s will, whatever it may be. When one is truly in this state, it is usually but a little way to
the knowledge of what his will is.
2. Do not depend on feelings. Having done this, I do not leave the result to feeling or
simple impression. If I do so, I make myself liable to great delusions.
3. Seek the Spirit’s will through God’s Word. I seek the will of the Spirit of God through,
or in connection with, the Word of God. The Spirit and the Word must be combined. If I look
to the Spirit alone without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If the Holy
Ghost guides us at all, he will do it according to the Scriptures and never contrary to them.
4. Note providential circumstances. Next, I take into account providential circumstances.
These often plainly indicate God’s will in connection with his Word and Spirit.
5. Pray. I ask God in prayer to reveal his will to me aright.
6. Wait. Thus, through prayer to God, the study of the Word, and reflection, I come to a
deliberate judgment according to the best of my ability and knowledge, and if my mind is
thus at peace, and continues so after two or three more petitions, I proceed accordingly.
In trivial matters, and in transactions involving most important issues, I have found this
method always effective.[11]
In this final chapter, we have discussed the somewhat difficult subject of fallible choices.
We are reminded that walking in the way of wisdom requires humility before God and
others, remembering how we are limited and subject to error. Nevertheless, the good news is
that it is possible to live at peace with believers who differ from us and that we can
confidently make choices in life, knowing that “this God is our God for ever and ever; he
will be our guide even to the end” (Ps 48:14 NIV).
Further Reading
Howard, Grant. Balancing Life’s Demands: A New Perspective on Priorities. Portland:
Multnomah, 1986.
Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2009.
Moreland, J. P. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the
Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997.
Stott, John. Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Afterword
We have attempted to examine the central themes of Christian virtue and conduct in
hopes that this book will direct its readers in the way of wisdom. We have taken an approach
that attempts to thoroughly engage the biblical text rather than focusing on philosophical
ethics, though, as we have seen, that has its place.
Though sometimes tempted, we have not held back from trying to address controversial
issues. But we recognize our limitations about being able to speak a definitive “thus says the
Lord” about certain topics and that we must be more tentative in our assessment—perhaps to
the dismay of some readers. And no doubt there will be points on which certain readers will
differ—perhaps frustratingly so.
As we have written a book that seeks to take God’s holiness and goodness very seriously,
we recognize that some readers may feel discouraged when they consider the gulf between
the infinite God and finite creatures. While we should always be grateful for divine
conviction in our lives, this is different from unnecessarily bearing the burden of a guilt that
Christ is ready to forgive and relieve when we confess and repent. And let us not forget
God’s own self-characterization as compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in
lovingkindness (Ex 34:6). What we in ourselves are not able to accomplish, God has done in
Christ our champion (Rom 8:1-4; Heb 12:1-2) so that we might run the race before us with
perseverance while the image of Christ is being formed in us (Gal 4:19).
And let us remember that as part of God’s new creation in Christ, God has bestowed his
gracious Spirit on all who have entrusted their lives to him. It is this Spirit who accompanies,
strengthens and encourages us, particularly in the face of the evil one’s accusations (Rev
12:10). We have other divine resources—not only the Word of God, prayer, the church and
spiritual gifts, but also the sacraments that remind us of the depths of his love and the length
to which God has gone for our salvation.
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the
presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus
Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and
forever. Amen.
Jude 24-25
