Glen Memorial Baptist Church

Luck observes, "Plural (absolute) rules + their conffict in appir = an incoherent (and therefore unacceptable) system."" Similarly. Feinbergs identify this as an important topic, for the incoherency within the moral law raises'crucial concerns for beonl. ly, the rOspect of confronted with concrete decisions."3 Indeed, if moral absolute: Can conflict with one another, then both in principle and in practice there must be a means for resolving such conflict in order to avoi moral paralysis. Sider warns, "There is no casy ethical calculus to solve such [moral] conflicts."% Nevertheless, as ethicists have consid. ered this issue over time, several viewpoints have emerged. Following the general trajectory set by Geisler, this chapter will review five perspectives on the internal coherency of the moral law, focusing specihically on possible options for dealing with conflicting moral absolutes or what are sometimes referred to as ethical dilemmas. For cach view that is presented, the approach will be explaine, propo- nents will be identified, strengths will be mentioned, and weaknesses (if any) wil be explored. This chapter will conclude by applying sev- eral of the described approaches to the biblical narrative of Rahab and the Hebrew spies as recorded in Josh 2:1-24. Conflicting Monal Absolutes As THIS SURVEY OF APPROACHES TO Conflicting moral absolutes is begun, three caveats are in order. First, while the issue of the coher- ency of the law is an important and oft-discussed topic in moral literature, eth anure, ethical dilemmas (in the sense of conflicting moral norms) are exceptional, not normative. This topic, then, is addressed not Locuuse of its frequency of ocCurrence but because of its importance wichin the discipline eofbiblical ethics. Second, the possibility of moral Lat colliding, resulting in an incoherent system of ethics, assumes laws ke helief in more than one moral norm. Ethical systems that do not the belief frm multiple moral absolutes do not resolve this question; rather, they avoid it. Yet such perspectives still bear upon the coherency of the moral law and are included in the discussion that follows. Third, Gince the first two viewpoints that follow do not affirm the existence of multiple moral absolutes, historically they have not been viewed as notmative, viable options for Christians. Among other reasons this is so because the Bible contains many axiomatic moral norms. These views are included here for the sake of comprehensiveness and, as Geisler notes, "Since they challenge Christian ethics, they must be addressed."8 Antinomianism ANTINOMIANISM IS A FORM OF ETHICAL relativism that practically denies there are any divine, universal moral absolutes. The word antinomianism was coined by Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and literally means against the law." As was previously noted, since antinomianism denies the existence of objective moral law or rejects their application, this is not a normative Christian view and oueh. to be confused with the previously reviewed discontinuity approach to law and gospel (see chap. 3).° In a sense, the term antinomianta is a misnomer, for most antinomians are not literally against the laue they are just without the law since they deny a regulative role for the moral law. Obviously, since there are no moral absolutes witbin an antinomian ethical system, conflict between nmoral norms cannot occur. For advocates of antinomianism, then, the coherency of the law is mostly a nonissue, as there are no laws within this approach that can be at odds and thus result in an incoherent system of echics. In pre-Christian and non-Christian ethical systems, denial or rejection of the regulative role of the moral law is fairly wide- spread. Indeed, there are many views that fall into these categories that could be cited as examples of antinomianism. In a formal or academic sense, though, antinomianism is not nearly as com- mon as it is in practice. Examples in the time of the early church include the Epicureans who elevated pleasure at the expense of moral absolutes, and certain varieties of Gnostic thinkers who elevated spiritual unity and knowledge at the expense of earthly morality. More recent secular examples of antinomianism include isn utilitarian thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill," existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre, 12 nihilists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, l5 and emotivists such as A. J. Ayer.!4 While there certainly are different nuances and emphases between and among these individuals, a common denominator is a rejection of objective (especially divine) moral law and an elevation of some type of self-generated morality. While antinomianism is not a normative Christian view, it has nevertheless been manifest from time to time within the church. For example, in Scripture the apostle Paul dealt with a stripe of antinomianism in the Corinthian church that resulted in sexual immorality (cf. 1 Corinthians 5-6). In Rome some who either mis- anderstood or purposely distorted the doctrine of justification by fith alone believed Paul to have taught, "Let us do what is evil so that good may come" (Rom 3:8; cf. 6:1-2). In the carly church Augustine addressed a faction of Carthaginian antinomians in his Aeainst Adversaries of the Law and the Prophets. 1" Likewise, during the Reformation, some who misunderstood the doctrine of justification by faith alone embraced antinomianism. An example of such teach- ing can be seen in the lengthy debate between Johannes Agricola, Philip Melanchthon, and Martin Luther. Moreover, in Protestant theology antinomianism has occasionally appeared among certain sects of Anabaptists, High Calvinists, Puritans, and Wesleyans."" Antinomianism is certainly not without its benefits, including its stress on individual moral responsibility and its emphasis on the emotive and relational aspects of ethics.l8 Yet antinomianism also has a number of significant drawbacks. For example, a major philosophical challenge facing antinomianism is that it appears to be a self-defeating idea. To elaborate, it is logically impossible for antinomians to claim that there are no moral absolutes without making an absolute moral claim. As Geisler observes: "One cannot deny all value without presupposing some value. . ... Moral abso- lutes cannot be denied unless they are implied."19 Another critique of antinomianism is that even if it were possible to actualize it, the use and value of antinomianism is questionable in light of man's need for absolutes in order to function and to exist. Indeed, by default, humans create and use moral norms; therefore, to deny their existence seems both irrational and illogical. Additionally, as was previously mentioned, for Christians a problem with antino- mianism is that the Bible contains many moral norms. To embrace • antinomianism, then, would seem to be damaging to the authority and the content of Scripture. Situationalism SITUATIONALISM, WHICH S ALSO CALLED SITUATIONAL Or COntextual ethics, is an approach to morality that attempts to avoid the pit- falls of both antinomianism and legalism. Situationalism affirms the existence of one universal, moral absolutethat is, the duty to love others. Joseph Fletcher, the classic proponent of this approach to morality, explains, "Christian ethics or moral theology is not a scheme of living according to a code but a continuous cffort to relate love to a world of relativities through a casuistry obedient to love; its constant task is to work out the strategy and tactics of love."0 In short, then, this approach could be summarized with the sentence, “Do the most loving thing." According to this view of ethics, when the duty to love others is upheld, morality is served. Situationalism does not, however, just emphasize an existential or ontological duty to keep moral norms with a heart motivated by love. On the contrary, situationalism ciaims that the only uni- versal moral norm is to love. As such, situationalists are opposed to a plurality of moral norms as well as to concrete ethical systems comprised of fixed moral norms. This is because, for the situation- alist, moral acts are determined by the individual and will vary by situation-hence, the name "situational ethics." So, aCcording to situationalism, two people in the exact same situation may make different choices and both be correct; or, the same person in the same situation twice could make differing choices each time and be correct both times.21 The key is for the individual to do the most loving thing in a given situation, not to follow any preconceived system of moral standards. Fletcher writes: "Any [fixed] ethical sys- tem is unchristian. ... Jesus had no [system of] ethics.... In situ- ation ethics even the most revered principles may be thrown aside if they conflict in any concrete case with love. ...Christian situa- tion ethics reduces love from a statutory system of rules to the love canon alone."22 Since situationalism affirms only one moral norm, conflict between norms cannot occur. As mentioned previously, the spokesman for situational ethics is loseph Fletcher. Indeed, Fletcher's book Situation Ethics: The New Morality popularized this approach to ethical reasoning, bringing it from the academy to the masses. Yet shades of situationalism can be seen in other thinkers, too, both before and after Fletcher. For example, other names that have been associated in moral litera- ture with a situational-type approach to erhics, whether fairly or not, include Rudolf Bultmann, Emil Brunner, John Dewey, Paul Lehmann, H. Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold Niebuhr, John A. T. Robinson, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Paul Tillich.23 On account of its ostensible simplicity and elevation of love, a situational type approach to ethics may appear winsome, if not compatible with a system of biblical ethics.24 Situationalism, how- ever, has several significant limitations. For example, situationalism does not appear to have a firm basis for its exaltation of love. It is inconsistent for the situationalist to appeal to Scripture to exalt the norm of love, for the Bible contains many moral norms. This critique would especially apply to a Christian situationalist. The choice to elevate love, then, seems arbitrary. A related problem is the ability of situationalism to define love apart from Scripture. Davis calls this the "fundamental difficulty' of situational ethics,25 and McQuilkin observes that "by divorcing love from law, the situ- ationalist empties it of concrete meaning."2 Situationalism speci- fies that each individual gets to define love. Yet, given the Bible's teaching on unregenerate man's ability to love, this appears to b problematic at best (cf. Rom 3:10-18; 7:18-19). Moreover since such a definition of love will inevitably vary between individuals, it is not really a moral norm at all. It seems, then, that situationalism can be fundamentally reduced to a utilitarian form of antinomian. ism, a charge Fletcher seems to admit." Therefore, the previous critiques of antinomianism can be applied to situationalism. Conflicting Absolutism A POPULAR CHRISTIAN APPROACH TO NAVIGATING moral dilemmas is conflicting absolutism, alternatively known as ideal absolutism, tragic morality, or a lesser-evil view of moral conflict. This position holds that there are many universal moral absolutes. As its name implies, this approach teaches that moral norms can and do come into real conflict both in theory and in practice. When such a clash of norm occurs, conflicting absolutism teaches that man must choose sinfully to break one of the moral norms in tension--hopcfully opting for the lesser of two evils- and then repent and seek forgiveness. John Warwick Montgomery, a leading contemporary proponent of con- Aicting absolutism, explains: The Christian morality fully realizes the difficulty of moral decision [making], and frequently a Christian finds him- self in a position where it is necessary to make a decision where moral principles must be violated in favor of other moral principles, but he never vindicates himself in this situation. He decides in terms of the lesser of evils or the greater of goods, and this drives him to the Cross to ask forgiveness for the human situation in which this kind of complication and ambiguity exists.28 In addition to Montgomery, other major advocates of confict- ing absolutism include Helmut Thielicke, J. I. Packer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Erwin Lutzer.? Interestingly, in the Protestant rradition this approach is most often (although not solely) seen among those who have adopted or been influenced by Lutheran theology. It has been suggested that this phenomena is due in part to Martin Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms.º Lutheran scholar Bernhard Lohse explains: "The intent behind the differen- tiation between the two kingdoms or two governments, both of which exist side by side in Luther, is to distinguish human existence 'before God (coram Deo) and 'before the world' (coram mundo).... They are especially to serve the purpose that the spiritual remain spiritual and the temporal temporal."31 So, whether it was Luther's intent or not, the dualistic nature of this doctrine has produced, or at least allowed for, paradoxes in certain areas of Lutheran moral theology, one of which is conflict- ing absolutism. An example from Luther's own thought where this tension can be detected comes from a letter to his colleague Philip Melanchton. Here Luther wrote: If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true, not a fic- titious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fic- titious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says (2 Pet 3:13), we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. ... Pray boldlyyou too are a mighty sinner."" Advocates of conflicting absolutism support this view by appealing to Scripture passages that address the fallen condition of the world as well as the inevitability of personal sin (cf. Ps 51:5; Rom 3:23). As Geisler notes, the fact that the world is fallen and that moral conflicts will occur is "a central assumption of [conflict- ing absolutism]."34 This is one of the strengths and attractions of conflicting absolutism-that is, an emphasis on the fallen estate of man, the holiness of God, the unbending nature of moral abso- lutes, and man's need to repent when he transgresses the law.> Yet proponents of this approach are careful to note that unavoidable sinful choices have their root in the corruption of man, not in the design of God. Another benefit of conflicting absolutism is its sim- plicity when faced with complex moral situations. Indeed, conflict- ing absolutism can ease the process of dealing with difficult ethical scenarios by teaching that sometimes there is no sin-free option, for sin is inevitable in a fallen world.% In such cases man is to sin freely, repent, and then seek forgiveness. Additional support for conflicting absolutism comes from examples in Scripture that advocates of this view claim demon- strate real conflict between moral norms. Without commenting (at this point) as to the quality of these examples, key passages nd in the moral literature in support of conflicting absolutism include: Abraham and Sarah's lie before Pharaoh and Abimelech (f Gen 12:10-20; 20:2-18), the Hebrew midwives' lie to Pharaoh onncerning the birth of male babies (cf. Exod 1:15-20), Rahab's Be about the location of the spies (cf. Josh 2: 1-14), Samson's divinely approved suicide (Judg l6:30), Michal's lie about David's whereabouts (cf. 1 Sam 19:14), David's lie about his mission (cf. I Sum 21:2), Samuel's lie about his intentions (cf. 1 Sam 16:1-5), Daniel's companions' defiance of the governing authorities (Dan 8-30), and the apostles' disobedience of the religious rulers (Acts 4:13-22). Despite the appeal of conflicting absolutism, this approach to resolving moral dilemmas is not without its problems. In fact, Frame asserts that this view is morally confused," even claim- ing it is "[not) compatible with Scripture,"37 and Geisler calls it "morally absurd."$ A major challenge for conflicting absolutism is the Christological implications that stem from the position. To elaborate, this approach seems to make Jesus' incarnation either less authentic or artificially engineered, for Christ never sinned. Scripture is clear that Jesus was fully God and fully man yet was without sin (cf. Heb 2:14-18; 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Yet, since conflicting absolutism teaches that in certain scenarios man sin, it seems that during his incarnation Jesus must have been supernaturally preserved from situations in which he would have o sin. Yet, if this is true, in what significant sense can it be said that Christ "has been tested in every way as we are" (Heb 4:15)? It seems conflicting absolutism must hold that Jesus' incarnation was fundamentally different from that of other men in that he never experienced real moral conflict. If so, Jones writes that conflicting absolutism "renders the example of Jesus meaningless . . . (in that he) was not tested in all points like us."39 A second problem with conflicting absolutism is its view of the nature of lavw. Given that there is no conflict within the Godhead (cf. John 17:22) if the law reflects the moral character of God. i. dificult to understand how the law could conflict with itself Whi. le proponents of conflicting absolutism may appeal to the fallen cstate estate of the created order in support of their view, the fall of man did not ontologically affect God or his law. Only man and the creation were cursed. It would seem, then, that advocates of this position cannot adopt the "authority is law" paradigm of the nature of law (see chap. 2). Moreover, it is also worth noting that God formaly gave his law to mankind after the fall. Therefore, in light of divine injunctions to keep the law (cf. John 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 John 5:2-3), it seems reasonable to expect that redeemed man could in fact do so. While no one will perfectly keep the law, to deny this possibility may have the effect of minimizing personal holines and creating a moral duty to sin on some occasions. Moreover, it would seem to make God unjust if he allows mankind to exist in an environment in which sinning is inevitable and yet still holds man accountable for such necessary transgressions of the law.40 A third challenge for conflicting absolutism is that the Bible expressly forbids doing evil that good may result (cf. Rom 3:8; 6:1, 15) and clearly teaches, "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful, and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape so that you are able to bear it" (1 Cor 10:13; cf. 2 Pet 2:9). Furthermore, the Bible nowhere explicitly addresses the issue of conflicting moral absolutesa surprising omission given that moral dilemmas, if possible, would likely be some of the greatest trials a Christian could face. Indeed, the burden of Scripture is on doing what is right-that is, simply keeping moral norms--not upon commit- ting a lesser evil in the name of avoiding a greater sin. Perhaps then, conficting absolutism is open to the charge of being overly simplistic in that when faced with moral dilemmas, it fails to lok for a way of escape. Graded Absolutism AVIEW OF RESOLVING MORAL CONFLICTS that gained popularity in the lte twentieth century is known as graded absolutism. This approach has e also been called ethical hierarchicalism, contextual absolutism, and qualified absolutism. In short, graded absolutism teaches there are many universal moral norms that can and do conflict. In this ense graded absolutism is similar to conficting absolutism. Yet Sense aded absolutism differs from other approaches to moral dilemmas, graded incuding conficting absolutism, in its claim that all ethical norms an be arranged in a hierarchy of merit. According to graded abso- lutism, when moral conflict occurs, resolution can be achieved by breaking a lower moral norm in order to keep a higher moral norm. Yet the hallmark of graded absolutism is its teaching that when a lower moral norm is broken in order to resolve a moral conflict, no sin has been committed. In this way graded absolutism differs from conficting absolutism since it does not focus on sinfully committing a lesser evil but on righteously keeping the greater good. Norman Geisler, the modern architect of graded absolutism, summarizes this approach to moral dilemmas: The essential principles of graded absolutism are: There are many moral principles rooted in the absolute moral char- acter of God; there are higher and lower moral duties for example, love for God is a greater duty than love for people; These moral laws sometimes come into unavoid- able moral confict; In such conflicts we are obligated to follow the higher moral law; When we follow the higher moral law we are not held responsible for not keeping the lower one,41 Although shades of graded absolutism can be detected in ear- lier thinkers such as W.D. Ross,42 and while other contemporary ethicists have adopted graded absolutism--including John Jefferson Davis, John Feinberg, and Paul Feinberg. -Geisler crafted and popularized the approach as it is known in modern evangelical eth- ics. Interestingly, Geisler shuns credit as the innovator of this view. claiming that it is rooted in the Reformed tradition." Yet his exam- ples of Augustine and Charles Hodge as past advocates of graded absolutism are not convincing and are tenuous at best, a fact Geisler himself seems to concede.45 General support for graded absolutism comes from the apparent unavoidability of moral confAicts, both in Scripture and in real life, coupled with the divine expectation of holiness (cf. Matt 5:48). Geisler remarks: "It is both unrealistic and unbiblical to assume that moral obligations never conlict. Real life reveals this kind of con- Alict daily in hospitals, courtrooms, and battlefields. ... It is naive to assume that these kinds of situations never happen."0 Scriptural examples of moral conflict cited by advocates of this approach are identical to those mentioned carlier in support of conflicting abso- lutism, including, for example, the Hebrew midwives, the Rahab narrative, and the like. Therefore, in view of the divine imperatives to keep God's laws, as well as the aforementioned shortfalls of con- Aicting absolutism, graded absolutists reason that there must be a way to navigate real moral conflict without creating a necessity to sin in order to avoid moral paralysis and incoherency of the law. Obviously, the aspect of graded absolutism on which the entire system depends is the idea of a hierarchy of moral norms. Proponents of graded absolutism generally admit there is not an explicit hierarchy of moral absolutes disclosed in Scripture; yet they claim such a hierarchy, or what Geisler calls a "pyramid of values," can be readily discerned and constructed through various allusions in the Bible. Examples of such veiled references include: Jesus' reference to the "least of these commandments" (Matt 5:19); Jesus' citation of "the greatest and most important command" (Matt 22:38); Jesus' reference to "the more important matters of the law" (Matt 23:23): Jesus' reference to he who has committed "the greater sin" (John 19:11); and Paul's claim that "the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13). Advocates of graded absolutism also cite the idea of degrees of punishment in hell (cf. Luke 10:12-14) and rewards in heaven (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15) as evidence of there being a hierarchy of moral norms; for, they reason, there must be a hierarchy of norms in order to produce a gradation of punishments and rewards. 48 That graded absolutism is attractive to some modern evangeli- cal ethicists is not surprising, for this approach appears to offer a way to resolve real moral conflict without requiring personal sin. Yet graded absolutism is not without its limitations. For example, many have found the idea of a graded hierarchy of moral norms to be problematic if not entirely unbiblical. While the aforemen- tioned proof-texts for a hierarchy of absolutes may indicate that all moral norms are not to be weighed equally in application, these passages do not provide a working hierarchy of moral absolutes.9 In view of this lack of an explicit hierarchy of moral norms, Jones comments, "As a method, Geisler's hierarchicalism is too open- ended. Such a theory requires that one know which value is intrin- sically higher in the conflict situation."s0 Similarly, John and Paul Feinberg, who themselves are advocates of graded absolutism, admit that they are not "certain that if one did construct a hierarchy, it would be applicable to every situation, regardless of the factors involved in each case."51 Of course, without a working hierarchy of moral norms, graded absolutism ceases to be a viable system of resolving moral conflict. A second related challenge for graded absolutism is that even if a ixed hierarchy of ethical absolutes could be established from Scripture, proponents of this approach would still need to demon- strate that conflict between higher and lower moral norms actually occurs. The examples of moral conflict cited by advocates of both conflicting and graded absolutism are not described in Scripture as involving moral conflict. Indeed, as was mentioned previously, the Bible does not contain any univocal examples of conflict between moral norms, nor is there any teaching in Scripture on how to resolve such hypothetical moral conflict. Furthermore, even if advocates of graded absolutism could establish a hierarchy of moral norms from Scripture and show that real conflict between higher and lower moral norms can occur, they would still need to dem- onstrate that the Lord sanctions breaking lower moral nor means of resolving such conflict. A third limitation of graded absolutism is that in teaching that it is not sinful to break a lower moral norm, albeit at the expense of keeping a higher moral norm, this approach appears to trivialize the concept of moral absolutes. Indeed, in explaining this concept, it seems that at times advocates of graded absolutism are playing a word game or using, as Luck notes, "linguistic mirrors."2 For example, Geisler writes: “Not all absolutes are absolutely absolute. Some are only relatively absolute, that is, absolute relative to their Lower norms are not universal in the broadest sense of the word. ... That is, lower ethical norms cannot be uni- versally universal but only locally universal. They are valid on their particular relationship but not on all relationships."53 In another place Geisler attempts to clarify this concept, writing, "There are particular area. . exceptions to absolute moral laws, only exemptions from obey- ing them."> Needless to say, to claim that moral norms are not absolutely absolute, nor universally universal, and that there are exemptions to obeying moral laws, but no exceptions to keeping them, Geisler leaves himself open both to misunderstanding and to criticism. One final limitation of graded absolutism is that this approach seems to have problems dealing with verses in Scripture that specify breaking one point of the moral law makes one guilty of violating the entire law. For example, Paul taught, "Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed" (Gal 3:10; cf. Deut 27:26; Rom 3:19); and James wrote, "For who- ever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of break- ing it all (Jas 2:10). Rather than teaching that it is permissible to violate one part of the law in view of a greater good, these passages seem to indicate that there is an organic unity of the entire moral law that cannot be violated. A related challenge for graded absolut- ism is the so-called vice lists in Scripture that seem to present all laws as being equal in essence (cf. Matt 15:19; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Pet 4:3 4). Indeed, many more passages in Scripture present the law being equal than veiled allusions to a hierarchy of moral norms. So, while this approach is creative in its desire to affirm the reality of conflicting moral absolutes, as well as man's duty to avoid sin, there may yet be a better solution to resolving moral dilemmas. Nonconflicting Absolutism A THIRD CHRISTLAN APPROACH TO DEALING with moral conflict is known as nonconflicting absolutism. This view, which Jones accurately observes is "the classic Christian approach, "$5 has also been called unqualified absolutism, case analysis, and casuistical divinity. As with both conflicting and graded absolutism, nonconflicting absolutism holds that there are many universal and absolute moral norms. How- ever, as its name implies, nonconflicting absolutism differs from other approaches in its teaching that conflict between moral norms cannot and does not occur. In other words, nonconflicting absolutisnm holds that there will never be a case where moral norms collide, resulting in the need to break one moral norm in order to keep another, or vice "Divinely- given moral absolutes never truly conflict, although there are occasions when they appear to conflict. Non-conflicting absolutism holds that there will never be a situation in which obedience to one absolute will entail disobedience to or the setting-aside of another absolute."s6 In the preceding citation Rakestraw makes the important obser- vation that sometimes moral norms will appear to collide. Yet, non- -the Rakestraw summarizes this approach well, conflicting absolutists hold that such conflict is only apparentthe result of either misperception of circumstances, misunderstanding of moral norms, or both; however, true conflict between moral norms does not occur. Advocates of nonconflicting absolutism teach that in order to avoid confusion, as well as the appearance of conflict, in ethical analysis it is important that moral norms be defined and viewed biblically. ODonovan writes, "If we are to obey any rule, we must understand the scope and meaning of its terms; and that applies no less to God-given rules such as those in the Decalogue."7 Similarly, Jones comments: versa. Analysis of how the commandments apply in typical cases begins with careful consideration of the commandments themselves. Absolutes in the sense of objective, univer- sal, exceptionless moral norms can only be formulated by attending carefully to the whole teaching of Scripture in a given area. Many of the dilemmas posed in the evangelical literature on moral conflicts are readily resolvable on this basic principle. 8 This call for careful consideration and defining of moral norms is not a plea for what Kierkegaard called a "teleological suspen- sion of the ethical," nor is it an attempt to recognize what Ross called "prima facie duties," nor still is it to engage in what Geisler critically labeled 'stipulative redefinition."6 Rather, it is a call for critical, biblical analysis of moral dilemmas and the norms con- tained therein. To illustrate, if a father were to ask his son to steal a pack of cigarettes from a local convenience store, there is the veneer of moral conflict between the duty to obey parents and the law that prohibits stealing. Yet, upon further reflection, there is no real moral conflict here for, as Paul notes, the fifth commandment does not entail blind obedience; rather, it requires obedience in "the Lord" (Eph 6:1). Similarly, if a soldier were ordered by his commanding officer to kill an enemy in a time of war, there would be no actual moral conflict between the duty to submit to authority and the commandment that prohibits killing. This is because the sixth commandment does not prohibit killing per se; rather, it for- bids murder--that is, the intentional, lawless, and malicious taking of human life. As such, there is a difference between cold-blooded murder and killing in a time of war. As was noted previously, nonconlicting absolutism is the clas- sic Christian position on dealing with moral dilemmas. Yet, as Rakestraw rightly observes: It is very difficult to find a clear, sys- tematic, evangelical presentation of non-conflicting absolutism by advocate of the position. Non-conflicting absolutism is most often assumed rather than argued."62 This being true, cogent pre- sentations and examples of nonconflicting absolutism can be found in classic Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Charles Hodge (contra Geisler) and in modern ethicists including John Frame, David Clyde Jones, William E Luck, Robertson McQuilkin, John Murray, and Robert Rakestraw, among others,6 Moreover, as Rakestraw alludes to, nonconflicting absolutism is the assumed view of most ethics texts in the evangelical Protestant tradition. One of the greatest arguments in favor of nonconflicting abso- lutism is a natural reading of the Bible. As was noted carlier, there are no univocal examples of moral conflict in Scripture. While proponents of both conflicting and graded absolutism cite alleged examples of moral conflict in the Bible, none of these proof-texts are presented as moral conflicts in the narrative of Scripture itself- either in their appecarance or in their resolution. Indeed, it seems clear that the focus of the Bible is not on conflict between moral norms but on conflict between believers and moral norms, includ- ing the temptation to sin. In the face of such conflict, Christians have promises such as "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful, and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape so that you are able to bear it" (1 Cor 10:13); and "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials" (2 Pet 2:9). Additionally, believers have the example and help of Jesus, who was "tested in every way as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15),64 Another important argument in favor of nonconflicting abso- lutism is the nature of moral norms themselves. If moral norms are based on and reveal the moral character of God (see the "author- ity is law paradigm in chapter 2), given the fact that there is no conflict within the Godhead (cf. John 17:22), it would seem logi- cally impossible for moral norms to collide-this despite the fact that the world is fallen, for the moral law itself was not affected by the fall. Said differently, if God is absolute and noncontradictory, then his moral norms ought to be absolute and noncontradictory. Rakestraw explains: "The very definition and nature of absolutes argues for non-conflicting absolutism. argues for non-conflicting absolutism. If God has given numerous moral absolutes, some of which (supposedly] conflict at times, it appears that there is conflict within the mind and moral will of God!"6s The character of God Of course, not all ethicists embrace nonconflicting absolutism, despite the preceding arguments and evidence, as well as the histo- ricity of the position. Indeed, some have argued that, when taken at face value, real-life experience and scriptural examples prove nonconflicting absolutism to be untrue.66 However, as has been discussed, nonconflicting absolutists respond that such conflict is only apparent, the result of a misperception of circumstances, a misunderstanding of moral norms, or both. Another charge that has been leveled against nonconflicting absolutism is that it focuses too much on defining moral norms to the neglect of the individuals involved in moral events. In so doing, Geisler believes nonconflicting absolutism is tantamount to legal- ism. He writes, "Another difficulty with unqualified absolutism is that it often tends toward legalism by neglecting the spirit of the law in order to avoid breaking the letter of the law."67 Yet it seems Geisler has either misunderstood nonconflicting absolutism or begged the question, for proponents of nonconflicting absolutism would argue their approach does the exact opposite of what Geisler claims. That is, nonconflicting absolutism focuses on discerning the true spirit of the law in order to understand better and define the letter of the law and thus avoid a skewed or legalistic approach to morality. In so doing, nonconflicting absolutism attempts to avoid creating a moral duty to sin, like conflicting absolutism, or trivializing the concept of absolute, like graded absolutism.$ A Biblical Test Case: Rabab and the Spies PERHAPS THE PRECEDING APPROACHES TO DEALING with moral conflict can best be understood by way of application to a biblical example. The account of Rahab's concealment of the Hebrew spies is one of the most well-known examples of apparent moral conflict in Scripture. This narrative is cited in almost all Christian treatments of moral dilemmas, regardless of the favored approach of a given volume. Since antinomianism and situationalism do not recog- nize moral conflict within their respective systems, only conflicting absolutism, graded absolutism, and nonconflicting absolutism review and consideration. For the sake of better understanding these three approaches to moral confict, each view's interpretation of the account of Rahab and the spies will be given in what follows without comment or critique. The details of the Rahab narrative, recorded in Josh 2:1-24; 6:17, 23-25, are familiar: Rahab, a harlot residing in the city of Jericho, lodges two Hebrew spies who have been sent by Joshua to scout out the city. When word of the foreigners' presence reaches the king of Jericho, Rahab voluntarily hides the men and then deceives the inquiring authorities about the spies' whereabouts. Consequently, when Israel later captures Jericho, Rahab and her family are spared. After these events Rahab is only mentioned three times in Scripture, all in the New Testament: Matt 1:5; Heb 11:31; and Jas 2:25. The apparent moral dilemma in the Rahab narrative is that when the king of Jericho asked Rahab to turn over the spies, she was faced with two logical options: cither assist the authorities and facilitate the spies' capture and murder or assist the spies by lying to the authoritis. Given these options, it seems as though there was not a way for Rahab not to sin. Advocates of conflicting absolutism read the Rahab narrative as describing a legitimate moral conflict between the laws prohibit- ing murder and lying-that is, the sixth commandment and the ninth commandment. Since most would view lying to be a lesser evil than murder, followers of this approach understand the text to teach that Rahab acted wisely as she fulfilled her moral duty to sin by lying about the spies' presence. While the text does not record Rahab's repentance for this sin, conflicting absolutists would under- stand Rahab to have later repented of her willing yet unavoidable deception. J. I. Packer, a conflicting absolutist, writes: When one sets out to be truthful, new problems appear. In such exceptional cases [of moral conflict] as we have mentioned, all courses of action have something evil in them, and an outright lie, like that of Rahab (Joshua 2:4-5: note the commendation of her in James 2:25) may actually be the best way, the least evil, and the truest expression of love to all the parties involved. Yet a lie, even when prompted by love, loyalty, and an escapable recogni- tion that if telling it is bad, not telling it would be worse, remains an evil thing..... But the lie as such, however nec- essary it appears, is bad, not good, and the right-minded man knows this. Rightly will he seek fresh cleansing in the blood of Christ and settle for living the only way anyone can live with our holy God-by the forgiveness of sins.9 As with conflicting absolutism, proponents of graded absolutism view the Rahab narrative as containing real moral conflict. Davis, a graded absolutist, asserts, “After Rahab the harlot reccived the Israelite spies, she was met with a choice between telling the truth and preserving life."70 Geisler concurs, noting, "The point here is that the conflict was genuine and both obligations were moral ones." So, graded absolutists view the apparent moral conflict in the Rahab narrative to be real; yet unlike conflicting absolutists, their solution is not to commit the lesser evil and then to repent. Rather, graded absolutists understand the text to teach that in order to assist the spies Rahab innocently deceived the authorities and kept the greater good. According to graded absolutists Rahab's deception was not sinful, for the truth norm ceased to be norma- tive in this scenario as it was trumped by the higher norm of pro- tecting life. Davis writes: When Rahab the harlot (Josh. 2:1-7), for example, spoke falsehood to protect the Israelite spies, was she choosing the "lesser of two evils," or a course of action acceptable to God?... Her course of action was acceptable to God. In the New Testament, Rahab is cited as an example of faith for receiving the spies and sending them out another way (James 2:25). Nowhere in Scripture is Rahab condemned for her action. On this construction Rahab fulfilled the moral absolute that applied.. .. Her actions, rather than being the lesser of two evils, were actually good."? Nonconflicting absolutists arrive at the same conclusion as do graded absolutiststhat is, Rahab did not sin in her deception-- albeit via a different route. Whereas graded absolutists hold that Rahab's breaking of the truth norm was not a sin since it was com- mitted in view of a greater good, nonconflicting absolutists teach that Rahab's deception was not a violation of a moral absolute at all. Frame, a nonconflicting absolutist, gives a general definition of lying as he asks, "What, then, is a lie? I would say that a lie is a word or act that intentionally deceives a neighbor in order to hurt him. ... The sin of false witness is that of distorting the facts in such a way as to harm one's neighbor."3 In view of this definition of lying, nonconflicting absolutists hold that Rahab did not break the truth norm by deceiving the authorities, for she did not lie for her own glory or expressly to harm the authorities. Rather, Rahab herself explains her own actions in view of her fear of the Lord (cf. Josh 2:9, 11). Moreover, advocates of this approach note that not only is Rahab not condemned for her words and actions in the text, but she is commended for them at Heb 11:31 and Jas 2:25. Rae writes, "[Rahab] is included in God's 'hall of faith in Hebrews 11 she is praised for her act of faith in providing a safe refuge for the spies. Clearly, part of providing that refuge was deceiving the authorities who were after the spies."74 Conclusion THIS CHAPTER HAS SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE that the coherency of the law is an important topic for biblical ethics and has investigated various options for dealing with apparent moral conflict. The pros- pect of moral norms colliding raises crucial questions for biblical ethics as it seeks to apply God's Word to all areas of life. In investigat- ing ways of dealing with moral conflict, this chapter has suggested Christians have historically held to one of three main approaches: conflicting absolutism, graded absolutism, and nonconficting abso- lutism. While there is certainly room at the table of moral discus- sion for each of these perspectives, this chapter found nonconflicting absolutism to be the least problematic option of the three. Summary Points Antinomianism--Literally means "against-the-law;" there are no applicable moral absolutes in an antinomian system; therefore, conflict between moral norms cannot occur. o Strengths-Stress on individual moral responsibility; emphasis on emotive and relational aspects of ethics. WeaknessesSelf-defeating as it makes morally absolute claim there are no moral absolutes; denies the fact that humans create and use moral norms. • Situationalism-Affirms the existence of one universal, moral absolute-the duty to love others. o StrengthsAppears to be winsome due to the centrality of love. Weaknesses-Love is declared to be central arbitrarily; inconsistent with the many moral norms of Scripture; relies on individual decision to determine what is most loving- Conflicting absolutism-Many universal moral norms con- Hict so that someone must sin in certain situations. o Strengths--Emphasizes the fallenness of man, the holi- ness of God, the unbending nature of moral absolutes, and the need for repentance; simplicity when complex moral situations arise: sin, repent, and seek forgiveness. o Weaknesses--Makes Jesus' incarnation less authentic or artificially engineered since Christ was fully human and divine but did not sin; conflicting absolutes would reflect conflict within the Godhead since the moral law is a refection of God's character; Scripture appears incon- sistent with this position (cf. Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:13). • Graded absolutism--Many universal moral norms can and do conflict, but ethical norms are hierarchical; thus, one can obey the higher norm while breaking the lower norm with- out sin. o Strengths-Acknowledges the apparent unavoidability of moral conflicts; allows for resolving moral conflict without sin. Weaknesses--No basis exists for a hierarchy of moral norms; does not demonstrate that conflict actually exists between higher and lower norms; teaches that it is not sinful to break a lower norm; Scripture teaches that if individual violates one part of the law, he violates the whole (cf. Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26; Jas 2:10). Nonconflicting absolutism--Many universal moral norms cannot and do not conflict. o Strengths Scripture provides no indication of conflict- ing moral absolutes or how to resolve them. Since moral norms are based on God's character, by definition they cannot conlict. Also, the classic evangelical approach. o Weaknesses--Real-life situations seemn to result in con- flicting moral norms; can seem to focus more on the norms than the people involved in the situation.

Glen Memorial Baptist Church

Pages

Ethics - Jones ch 5

March & April 2014 at GMBC

February and March 2014 Upcoming Activities and Events

Upcoming Events--Mark Your Calendar!!