PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten NT Ethical Principles


Amazing Rando
February 20th 2006, 09:11 PM
As an assignment for my Biblical Ethics class, I was assigned to create my own list of the "Top Ten" ethical teachings or principles in the New Testament. It's a subjective activity, designed to get us digging into the moral vision of the New Testament for ourselves. Thus, without further ado, I present my essay on what I see as the top ten principles for Christian ethics. I welcome feedback to my own list as well as your own "Top Ten" lists, should you feel motivated to create one. :teeth:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I sat down to write this essay last night, I began in a rather haphazard manner of pulling various important ethical teachings and collecting them. But I noticed a common, underlying theme when I attempted to expound on them, which of course ended up with me repeating myself ad nauseum. So here I am, making a fresh start. My ten New Testament ethical principles all fall under the common theme of servanthood. Essentially, New Testament ethics, or what God desires from us as the people of God, can be summed up with the following principle: God’s people are to be above all servants, first of God, then of our neighbors. While this theme of servanthood of God and neighbor is overbroad, in this essay I will attempt to identify ten corollary and derivative ethical teachings that help put meat on the bones of this central theme. Here they are, in no particular order:


1. Love the body of believers.
The key ethical focus of the Johannine literature is encapsulated in Jesus’ pithy statement in John 13:34: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” While Christians are directed to take an attitude of agape toward everyone, loving our brothers and sisters in Christ takes on a heightened level of importance in the Bible, not least because of its prominence in the gospel and epistles of John. The purpose of this love command is explicitly stated in John 13:35- it’s so that outsiders will know we belong to Jesus. Thus, the way we treat our brothers and sisters is crucial to the way outsiders perceive the Jesus movement as a whole. The example of how to love one another is provided by Jesus himself. The teaching comes shortly after Jesus’ enacted parable of washing his disciples’ feet. The connection between the two is too clear to deny. Our love for each other is thus to be characterized by servanthood, humility, and true affection, not just begrudging, duty-bound charity. Also see John 13:34-35, 15:9-17; 1 Thess. 4:9-10; Rom. 12:9-13, 13:8; 1 Peter 1:22, 4:8, etc.


2. Love your neighbor, including the religious, cultural, and social “other.”
While love for the new family we have entered in Christ is paramount and has a special place of importance in any discussion of Christian ethics, Scripture is clear that our love must be extended to everyone- particularly including those we would rather Jesus had not instructed us to love. The Lord summed up the entire intent of the Mosaic Law into two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor (Mark 12:29-31; cf. Rom. 13:9-10, Gal. 5:14, James 2:8). The uncomfortable part of this teaching lies in the fact that we are to love even those who we would most rather not. When asked by a teacher of the law the important clarifying question, “Who is my neighbor,” Jesus responded with the didactic parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). To good Jewish ears, this would have been shocking- not only was Jesus commanding love for total strangers, he was also casting a member of the hated Samaritan race as the example par excellence of love in action. Perhaps most shockingly of all, Jesus also extends the obligation to love to even one’s enemies (Luke 6:27-36). He sees love as the only true and lasting solution to the conflicts of the world, as well as the only faithful response to God’s own loving initiative.


3. Do not seek revenge.
As an important corollary to the difficult call to love one’s enemies, Christ also declares that we must renounce the prerogative of revenge. While this principle technically falls under the domain of several other NT ethical teachings, this teaching is central enough in the canonical Christian witness that it deserves special attention here. Jesus taught nonretaliation as a key and concrete way to love one’s enemies in Matthew 5:38-42. We are to respond to insults, threats, violence and coercion not in kind, but with grace, perseverance, and in fact, blessing! For the Christian, not only is physical violence excluded as a response to evil, but so are the root sins of anger, resentment, jealousy, and the like. This is by no means inaction, for pious, sedentary inaction is also an unacceptable option for faithful Christians. On the contrary, our response to evil and insults is to be “blessing” (1 Peter 3:9), proactively doing good to and for our persecutors rather than hating or harming them (Luke 6:27-28), and even meeting the needs of our enemies (Rom. 12:20). In doing so, we will not “be overcome by evil,” but will “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21).


4. Live for the well-being of the community of faith.
The church is the reconstituted people of God, formed around the memory and continuing presence of Jesus Christ, and the entire New Testament bears witness to the critical function served by the church as witnesses to God’s faithful action in the world. As such, the health and well-being of God’s people are of the utmost importance. In his discussion of Paul’s approach to pastoral conflict resolution in the churches, Richard Hays notes that the church represents “a way of life that surrenders freedom and prerogatives for the spiritual well-being of others” and that the “operative norm here is relinquishment of self-interest for the benefit of others” [The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 42] This can be seen clearly in Paul’s pastoral letters to his churches. First, Paul counsels that we “make up [our] minds not to put a stumbling block or obstacle” in the way of our ‘weaker’ brothers and sisters (Rom 14:13 and surrounding discussion; cf. 1 Cor. 8:9-13). Second, Paul himself surrenders the ‘right’ to make his living from the gospel for the good of the community (1 Cor. 9:1-27). He does this so as not to be a “burden” to the community who did not have much in the way of material resources (2 Cor. 12:11-16; cf. 1 Thes. 2:6-9; 2 Thes. 3: 7-10). Third, Paul recognizes that some unrepentant members of the community pose a danger to the church’s very existence, so he counsels expelling them from the fellowship for the good of the community, rather than allow them to become a cancer and so kill the church from the inside (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1-13; cf. Matt. 18:15-17).


5. Willingly subordinate yourself to all authorities.
Christians experience an extraordinary amount of freedom from the cares and worries of the world, yet Scripture repeatedly admonishes us not to abuse this freedom found in Christ (1 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 5:13). We are to willingly allow ourselves to be subordinated to authorities of all kinds, as long as doing so does not force us to violate our Christian conscience. These authorities include the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17), church authorities (1 Peter 5:5), and family authorities (Eph. 5:21-6:9). However, our subordination to these human authorities extends only so far as to the point where they do not conflict with our ultimate authority- God. This principle is illustrated most graphically when the apostles are ordered by the Sanhedrin to stop preaching the name of Jesus but refuse to do so, saying “we must obey God rather than any human authority!” (Acts 5:29- the NRSV’s linguistic paraphrase accurately captures the spirit of the apostles’ defiance in this case). There will inevitably be times when the demands imposed upon us by human authorities will run counter to the life of faithfulness God demands of us. When this is the case, the only faithful option is of noncompliance- we must remember where our true citizenship lies (Phil. 3:20) and be prepared, as the apostles were, to endure the consequences of obeying God rather than human authority.


6. Pray without ceasing.
One of the keys to the countercultural nature of the church is prayer. Prayer connects us directly with the presence of God and enables us to both bring our concerns to our Master and learn what it is he requires of his servants. Jesus modeled for his disciples how to pray in the light of the kingdom of God (Matt. 6:9-13), and taught them that prayer must not be a show of public piety, but an act of sincere, private devotion before God (Matt 6:6). Prayer can be corporate as well as individual, written as well as spoken. Paul opens many of his letters to the churches with thanksgivings to God and prayers for the well-being of the faith community (e.g. Phil. 1:3-11), and urges them to pray for him in return (e.g. Col. 4:2-4). He also communicates the necessity of being in a constant attitude of prayer, enjoining the Thessalonians to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thes. 5:17).


7. Put sin to death.
It almost goes without saying that the faithful Christian community is to abstain from sin entirely. Jesus emphasized the grievous nature of sin as an affront to God and to Christian dignity by declaring hyperbolically that if our hand or our eye causes us to sin, we are to cut them out (Matt 18:8-9). We are to have nothing to do with sin- in the New Testament, there is nothing even close to a rationalization for sinning as the “lesser of two evils” or for the sake of pragmatism, expediency, or “realism.” We are to “put to death” everything in our being that belonged to our old life of sin and worldly lusts, and “rid [ourselves] of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from [our] lips” (Col. 3:5-10). Since the grace of our Lord abounds in us and frees us from the guilt of our sins, shall we “go on sinning so that grace may increase,” as some accused Paul of preaching (Rom. 6:1)? By no means! We have died to sin- therefore we must not live in it any longer (Rom. 6:2). Sinning for the sake of some “greater good” is still sinning, and you will hard-pressed to find a more un-Christian moral philosophy than that.


8. Persevere in faith, even through suffering.
The Christian life is no cake-walk. Jesus told his disciples that they would experience all sorts of forces that oppose the ambassadors of Christ, not the least of which would be human opposition, which would entail beatings, hatred, and even death (Mark 13:9-13). In the midst of this opposition, Jesus calls us to persevere, and to endure suffering with gratitude. He takes the revolutionary step of pronouncing those who suffer for his sake “blessed” (Matt. 5:10-12), and declares that by “standing firm, [we] will gain life” (Luke 21:19). The apostles faced persecutions and suffering not with resentment or worry, but rather by “rejoicing” (Acts 5:41, cf. Rom. 5:3). By joining Christ, we also join the nature of his mission- suffering servanthood for the sake of others. But by persevering as he did, we also share in his reward, for “blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him” (James 1:12).


9. Take the “farsighted” approach.
When we adhere to the gospel’s proclamation of life in Jesus, we look beyond death and embrace the big picture of God’s story as revealed in Scripture. We come to realize that for God’s family, death is not the end, and suddenly, the way we live our lives is revolutionized. Jesus exhorts us to not fear those who can only kill our bodies, but after that are powerless on the contrary, only God is to be feared (Luke 12:4-5). Living in obedience to God means being willing to lay down our lives for others as Jesus did (John 15:13), and trusting in God for ultimate vindication and redemption, even if we do not see the results of our faithfulness within our own lifetimes (Rev 6:9-11). This confidence is expressed most fully in Romans 8, where Paul writes, “For I am convinced that 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 8:38-39). A life lived in this assurance will mean that we no longer fear death, for even this “last enemy” has been defeated (1 Cor. 15:26). How would living a life fearless of death change your outlook on being faithful to Jesus Christ?

10. Put your faith into action.
The goal of the gospel of the grace of Christ is not some “easy-believism” which allows us to rest comfortably on our laurels and be sedentary Christians. Rather Christ died for us, so that we might die for others. Faith requires action, and faith without such action is counted as “dead” (James 2:17, 26). We are to respond to Christ’s faithfulness with faithfulness of our own, and serve our God and our neighbor with our whole hearts. In this way, John writes to his church that Christ’s giving his life up for us necessarily requires a faithful response on our part:

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth (1 John 3:16-18).

Following Jesus is costliest decision one can ever make, for it involves dying to oneself and one’s own prerogatives and desires. It means living as a servant of the living God, and becoming a “slave of all” just as Jesus himself has done for us (Mark 10:44-45). Thanks be to God, who not only demands such a life of his people, but enables us to live it through his gracious gift of the Holy Spirit.

johnmartin
February 20th 2006, 09:18 PM
What about the funadamental precept of do good and avoid evil or the principle of the double effect that says you can do an act that is good according to its object, intention and circumstance but also has evil effects. For example one may kill to defend ones life. The intention is to defend, the object is to preserve one life anf the circumstances are in the immediate context of a life and death situation. These two notions are more fundamental. Any comments?
JM

Amazing Rando
February 20th 2006, 09:25 PM
What about the funadamental precept of do good and avoid evil

I tried to stick with explicitly scriptural concepts with my own list- obviously nobody would disagree with the idea of doing good and avoiding evil. :tongue:

The "doing good" bit is inherent in my selected theme of "servanthood," and I thought it would be pretty clear that "avoiding evil" was pretty well covered by number 7 on my list- "Put sin to death."

or the principle of the double effect that says you can do an act that is good according to its object, intention and circumstance but also has evil effects. For example one may kill to defend ones life. The intention is to defend, the object is to preserve one life anf the circumstances are in the immediate context of a life and death situation. These two notions are more fundamental. Any comments?
JM

As far as your second notion, I would dispute it unequivocably. The New Testament witnesses consistently and powerfully against Christians killing other human beings- even in self-defense- regardless of intention, circumstances, or object. :wink:

johnmartin
February 21st 2006, 03:11 AM
I tried to stick with explicitly scriptural concepts with my own list- obviously nobody would disagree with the idea of doing good and avoiding evil. :tongue:

The "doing good" bit is inherent in my selected theme of "servanthood," and I thought it would be pretty clear that "avoiding evil" was pretty well covered by number 7 on my list- "Put sin to death."



As far as your second notion, I would dispute it unequivocably. The New Testament witnesses consistently and powerfully against Christians killing other human beings- even in self-defense- regardless of intention, circumstances, or object. :wink:I think there is a passage in Romans concerning the notion of the sword being used. Cant remember where it is. Maybe you could find it. Anyway Paul says there are occassions where the sword can be used. Now there is probably some dispute as to who is using the sword, be it an indiviudal or the state (as in the death penalty), nevertheless it is there. Do you have some comment on this?
Also there is nothing inherently evil about killing someone in certain circumstances. For example the Jews are commanded by God to kill on the OT. This comes back to the nature of morality. What determines an act to be morally good or bad? Do you know? Do you want to discuss? I'm up for it.
JM

James Peter
February 21st 2006, 10:47 AM
The only thing that I really feel is missing from your list is something along the lines of "The ends does not justify the means" (based on Rom 3:8).

Shadow Phoenix
February 21st 2006, 10:51 AM
My concern is that your list seems to be horizontally focused. I was expecting the first principle to really be to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you cannot love God, how can you love your neighbor?

Ishmael
February 21st 2006, 11:26 AM
My concern is that your list seems to be horizontally focused. I was expecting the first principle to really be to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you cannot love God, how can you love your neighbor?
Can I post here?

If I can I will say that I don't think that this is a question of Ethics and should be left out of a list of this kind. The Love for God might be a foundation to your Ethics but it is not a Ethical principle, otherwise, you might do anything you consider to be in keeping with this "first" ethical principle. This point looks a whole lot smaller than it really is...

This area is for Christians only.

studyhound
February 21st 2006, 12:32 PM
I was wondering about #6 Pray without ceasing. This doesnt seem like an ethic so much as a spiritual formation, like fasting, meditating, solitude, worship, ect, ect.

Now I would say that all the other ethics could not flow from a health prayer life.

Perhaps this would be included in a foundational elements like Ishmael place Love the Lord.

sh

Amazing Rando
February 22nd 2006, 06:40 PM
I think there is a passage in Romans concerning the notion of the sword being used. Cant remember where it is. Maybe you could find it. Anyway Paul says there are occassions where the sword can be used. Now there is probably some dispute as to who is using the sword, be it an indiviudal or the state (as in the death penalty), nevertheless it is there. Do you have some comment on this?
Also there is nothing inherently evil about killing someone in certain circumstances. For example the Jews are commanded by God to kill on the OT. This comes back to the nature of morality. What determines an act to be morally good or bad? Do you know? Do you want to discuss? I'm up for it.
JM

Here you go john- something I posted in another discussion (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68956) regarding the references you make to Romans 13:1-7. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I just thought I'd repost this because it suitably makes the point I want to get across regarding the Romans 13 passage: Ah, I knew this one might come up! The passage in Romans 13:1-7 is indeed very important for this discussion, and is one which informs my understanding of how God uses human forces for his own purposes. There are several key points I think are important when reading this passage.

1.) If you'll forgive a little Greek here, I'd like to use it to illustrate a point. Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12- together, they form a cohesive literary unit, rather than Romans 13 being an off-topic interlude interrupting Paul's line of argumentation about love and forgiveness. Paul uses a form of the very same word to describe the government's role in Romans 13:4 (ekdikoV, translated in the NIV as "an agent of wrath", or "an avenger") as he does earlier in the very same literary unit to describe what Christians must not do (ekdikounteV, Romans 12:19, translated in the NIV as "take revenge," also can be translated as " 1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice 1a) to protect, defend, one person from another 2) to avenge a thing 2a) to punish a person for a thing" according to greekbible.com).

To quote from John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807348/qid=1137094294/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3079120-3285553?n=507846&s=books&v=glance),

Christians are told, (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. That makes it clear that the function to be exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.

And this is one of my key points- Christians must not participate in governmental activities that are contrary to God's will for his covenant people, the Church.

But how, you will probably ask, can warfare be wrong for Christians when Paul specifically says that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" are God's servants for wrath? :shrug: And that's a good question, which leads me to my second observation on this passage:

2.) When Paul called the "ruler" and "governing authorities" God's servants, he was following a long line of Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament, a surprising litany of people are called God's "servants." Sure, we have the usual suspects we might normally think of as God's servants, like Moses, David, Samuel, etc. But we also find another cast of characters who we would normally be shocked to discover that they too are God's "servants."

Isaiah describes the pagan armies of Assyria that were bent on wiping out the northern kingdom of Israel as God's "instrument" in Isaiah chapter 8. The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar who would destroy Jerusalem and take Judah into captivity is described as God's "servant" in Jeremiah 27:6 among other places. Finally, and perhaps most shockingly of all, the pagan king Cyrus of Persia is described as God's "annointed one" (literally, messiah! :stunned:) in Isaiah 45:1. It seems clear that in the Old Testament, God frequently uses the pagan armies of wicked, foreign nations when he wants to accomplish his "vengeance" or "wrath." This is precisely the function Paul is alluding to here. This leads me to my last point on this passage:

3.) Think for a moment about just who Paul has in view in Romans 13. Who is the one described as God's "servant" and "agent of wrath"? Why, it's the pagan emperor Nero! :dizzy: Yep, the very same one who lost his mind shortly after Paul wrote Romans, burned down half of Rome, blamed the fire on the Christians, and carried out some of the most horrible persecutions against the Christians that the Church has ever known. Paul himself eventually lost his life at the hands of God's "servant" Nero's bloodthirsty tirades.

A brief summary of the three observations: 1.) The state is given an authority to do something that is strictly forbidded for Christians to participate in earlier in the very same passage, 2.) God frequently uses pagan armies and rulers to accomplish his purposes, with the inspired writers going as far as describing them as his "servants," "instruments," and even "messiahs," and 3.) The terrible emperor Nero is described in these very same terms in Romans 13.

Anyway, in light of these three observations as well as the balance of Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation that was picked up by the apostles in such places as Romans 12, I've come to the conclusion that God uses the state for the legitimate function of "wrath" or punishing evil, but that Christians, the Church, and all disciples of Jesus must not be a part of it.

What think ye? :wink:

Amazing Rando
February 22nd 2006, 06:45 PM
My concern is that your list seems to be horizontally focused. I was expecting the first principle to really be to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you cannot love God, how can you love your neighbor?

You're right Nick, in that loving your neighbor as Jesus did is not fully possible apart from one's love of God. I guess it would come down to the question of what exactly we mean by "ethics." E.g. as studyhound asked, Is "Pray without ceasing" an ethical principle? :nsm:

Notice also the bolded part of my first paragraph, where I say that all my top ten principles are subsumed under what I see as the primary ethical teaching of the NT:

God’s people are to be above all servants, first of God, then of our neighbors.

Amazing Rando
February 22nd 2006, 06:45 PM
The only thing that I really feel is missing from your list is something along the lines of "The ends does not justify the means" (based on Rom 3:8).

I agree entirely! I like that one. :yes:

johnmartin
February 22nd 2006, 11:25 PM
Here you go john- something I posted in another discussion (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68956) regarding the references you make to Romans 13:1-7. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I just thought I'd repost this because it suitably makes the point I want to get across regarding the Romans 13 passage: Ah, I knew this one might come up! The passage in Romans 13:1-7 is indeed very important for this discussion, and is one which informs my understanding of how God uses human forces for his own purposes. There are several key points I think are important when reading this passage.

1.) If you'll forgive a little Greek here, I'd like to use it to illustrate a point. Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12- together, they form a cohesive literary unit, rather than Romans 13 being an off-topic interlude interrupting Paul's line of argumentation about love and forgiveness. Paul uses a form of the very same word to describe the government's role in Romans 13:4 (ekdikoV, translated in the NIV as "an agent of wrath", or "an avenger") as he does earlier in the very same literary unit to describe what Christians must not do (ekdikounteV, Romans 12:19, translated in the NIV as "take revenge," also can be translated as " 1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice 1a) to protect, defend, one person from another 2) to avenge a thing 2a) to punish a person for a thing" according to greekbible.com).

To quote from John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807348/qid=1137094294/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3079120-3285553?n=507846&s=books&v=glance),

Christians are told, (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. That makes it clear that the function to be exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.

And this is one of my key points- Christians must not participate in governmental activities that are contrary to God's will for his covenant people, the Church.

But how, you will probably ask, can warfare be wrong for Christians when Paul specifically says that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" are God's servants for wrath? :shrug: And that's a good question, which leads me to my second observation on this passage:

2.) When Paul called the "ruler" and "governing authorities" God's servants, he was following a long line of Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament, a surprising litany of people are called God's "servants." Sure, we have the usual suspects we might normally think of as God's servants, like Moses, David, Samuel, etc. But we also find another cast of characters who we would normally be shocked to discover that they too are God's "servants."

Isaiah describes the pagan armies of Assyria that were bent on wiping out the northern kingdom of Israel as God's "instrument" in Isaiah chapter 8. The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar who would destroy Jerusalem and take Judah into captivity is described as God's "servant" in Jeremiah 27:6 among other places. Finally, and perhaps most shockingly of all, the pagan king Cyrus of Persia is described as God's "annointed one" (literally, messiah! :stunned:) in Isaiah 45:1. It seems clear that in the Old Testament, God frequently uses the pagan armies of wicked, foreign nations when he wants to accomplish his "vengeance" or "wrath." This is precisely the function Paul is alluding to here. This leads me to my last point on this passage:

3.) Think for a moment about just who Paul has in view in Romans 13. Who is the one described as God's "servant" and "agent of wrath"? Why, it's the pagan emperor Nero! :dizzy: Yep, the very same one who lost his mind shortly after Paul wrote Romans, burned down half of Rome, blamed the fire on the Christians, and carried out some of the most horrible persecutions against the Christians that the Church has ever known. Paul himself eventually lost his life at the hands of God's "servant" Nero's bloodthirsty tirades.

A brief summary of the three observations: 1.) The state is given an authority to do something that is strictly forbidded for Christians to participate in earlier in the very same passage, 2.) God frequently uses pagan armies and rulers to accomplish his purposes, with the inspired writers going as far as describing them as his "servants," "instruments," and even "messiahs," and 3.) The terrible emperor Nero is described in these very same terms in Romans 13.

Anyway, in light of these three observations as well as the balance of Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation that was picked up by the apostles in such places as Romans 12, I've come to the conclusion that God uses the state for the legitimate function of "wrath" or punishing evil, but that Christians, the Church, and all disciples of Jesus must not be a part of it.

What think ye? :wink:
Good effort but it falls short. Paul in the NT handed over a Christian to Satan for the Christians salvation. This was a punishment for a sexual sin of incest (?). Here we see a manifestation of Pauls authority over the church as priest, prophet, king, bishop and apostle. He has full authority given to him by Christ. Also Peter does a similar act in Acts where the spirit kills a person for lying to Peter. Again this is a manifestation of church authority to punish sinners for sins committed. We also have the binding and loosing passages in Matt 16 and 18 for Peter and then the other apostles. Here again if the apostles have full authority (which they did) then they could and did bind others unto punishment for sins. Vengeance is nothing other than a virtue to punish for evil committed. Vengeance is a good thing to do in a measured way to correct the sinner.

Also, Christians must fight for the faith to defend themselves in times of war and distress. It is unchristian to be passivist. You won’t find a passivist verse in scripture. Sure we’re told to forgive and turn the other cheek but there is a limit to this as well. God does not require us to do anything unreasonable. If someone is persecuting us then we have the right to defend ourselves. We forgive when they show real repentance and not before. Christ himself was violent in the cleansing of the temple and also was very aggressive to the Pharisees calling them white washed tombs and so on. Here we see vengeance being used. Some will say Christ is God so he could do things Christians can’t do, but later in the NT Paul says to imitate him as he imitates Christ. So we must do a Christ did. This is very difficult and requires prudence and compassion but fraternal correction is a very great virtue that must be used to help our fellow brothers and sisters to heaven.

The theology of a just war has been developed over the centuries to show the morality of such an action. Christians can and should go to war in times of need, particularly when the faith is being attacked. There is more than one way to this of course through prayer, good works and evangelization but it can and does include physical combat when required. Christian states have always had standing armies for this very reason.
The wars of the crusades were examples of ‘just wars’ that were designed or aimed at regaining lost land taken by the Moslems. There is nothing wrong with relieving the suffering of other Christians through physical means required to remove an evil. The virtue of vengeance is just that, a virtue that must be used when required. Not to use it is a lack of love for our fellow men and may be an act of cowardice.

I welcome comments.
JM

johnmartin
February 22nd 2006, 11:40 PM
I agree entirely! I like that one. :yes:
Morality is the action of the spiritual powers of intellect and will to act for good in accordance with reason. Such goods are known by the intellect as goods under the character of ends. Hence men always go for ends and the will always appetises good. It is not possible for the will to appetise an evil.

The ends in the moral act are subordinate to other ends which are all subordinate to an ultimate end. This ultimate end is either God as the true end or man as the false end. As the imperfect is for the perfect, an act in accordance with reason is directed towards the true ultimate end. An act against reason such as the sin of murder is directed away from the true ultimate end to the false ultimate end. Once such a big sin is committed the will acquires a habitual attachment to love of self which is unreasonable. As the will is not free about ultimate ends, but only subordinate ends, once in this state of sin, man cannot then bring himself to love God above all things as the ultimate end of all his acts.

To be moved from the state of mortal sin to the state of justification requires a free act of grace from God to correct the evil attachment in the will. This is why new converts have a tough time over committing sins to which they have loved before their conversion and still have some attachment to after conversion. This is why the practice of the virtues is required to allow the justified to remain justified. As soon as attachments to sin are developed the love of God grows cold and the justified may eventually love a creature more than the creator.
Morality is about ultimate ends and subordinate ends. Any act is either directed immediately to the ultimate end or virtually towards the ultimate end. Any good end requires good means to achieve that end. However a good end may result in another bad effect which is then determined to require actions according to the principle of the double effect. This principle is used throughout ethics to permit actions that have both good and bad effects. Without it men would be restricted to act according to what could be done where only good effects resulted from the actions. This principle is used particularly in medicine and in the just war theory.

JM

johnmartin
February 22nd 2006, 11:46 PM
I tried to stick with explicitly scriptural concepts with my own list- obviously nobody would disagree with the idea of doing good and avoiding evil. :tongue:

The "doing good" bit is inherent in my selected theme of "servanthood," and I thought it would be pretty clear that "avoiding evil" was pretty well covered by number 7 on my list- "Put sin to death."



As far as your second notion, I would dispute it unequivocably. The New Testament witnesses consistently and powerfully against Christians killing other human beings- even in self-defense- regardless of intention, circumstances, or object. :wink:
I'd like to see your reasoning against Christians killing other human beings- even in self-defense- regardless of intention, circumstances, or object. I don’t think you will be able to defend this thesis from the OT, NT, ethics nor Christian history. Yes we are meant to love our neighbor but that includes loving those who are being persecuted. We must stop the persecutors and sometimes this may mean killing to protect the community. This is what we see in the OT with the Cananites.

JM

Jaltus
February 23rd 2006, 12:41 AM
I think you missed some big ones, or else were too specific with them.

1) humility
2) hospitality
3) brokeness
4) able to forgive
5) gentleness
6) integrity

Those are some I would swap out with some of yours.

johnmartin
February 23rd 2006, 06:02 AM
Further to the discusion on the principle of the double effect which is

Principle of double effect – It is licit to do an act whereby is posited a cause which produces two effects, the one good but the other bad, provided the following four conditions are together fulfilled.

That the good effect follow from the cause not less immediately than the bad effect. (Accordingly not by the medium of the bad effect).
And that there be a proportionately grave reason for doing this act or positing this cause. That is, that the good effect be proportionate to the bad effect or compensate for it.
And that the act (whereby the cause is posited) be in itself licit.
And that the good effect alone be intended. (Accordingly, the bad effect alone tolerated.
JM

Dr. Jack Bauer
February 23rd 2006, 05:01 PM
Christians are told, (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. That makes it clear that the function to be exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.

Almost, Dr Yoder, almost. It means that the divinely ordained "wrath function" of the state is not to be carried out by the individual. The text says that we are not to avenge ourselves but we are to leave it to God to do in the way that He chooses, namely via the state, God's servant. It also should not go unsaid that defense is not wrath, since wrath is punishment.

It is also curious that on the one occasion Jesus had the clear and unambiguous opportunity to literally turn the other cheek after he had been struck, He refused to do so. Can anyone tell us where this happened?