REC Home*** Theological Forum Theological Forum Vol. XXI, No. 1, March 1993
SOME REMARKS ON THE PROCESS OF CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
Johan Heyns * 1
INTRODUCTION
1. Let me begin by making a few introductory remarks regarding the theme. To make decisions is a distinctive human trait. Everyday we make many decisions, some more important than others. We are able to do so because we have received the gift of freedom, and we have to do so because we are summoned to responsibility.
2. We are concerned here with ethical decisions, that is to say, decisions which relate to what is good or bad for the human being as a person. Daily they land in situations where decisions must be taken and which to a greater or lesser degree affect one's person - one's own or someone else's. These decisions, which in one way or another influence people, their being and their function, their vocation and their destiny, we call ethical decisions.
3. When we speak of ethical decisions, we are referring to norms. A norm lays down what ought to be done. A norm is that by which something is measured. Ethical norms, then, declare how the human person ought to behave.
4. Our theme mentions contemporary ethical decisions, that is, decisions which affect us here and now in our present concrete circumstances. We are not concerned with decisions that were taken yesterday or will be taken tomorrow.
5. In our theme we also speak of a process. This does not imply that the decision itself need necessarily extend over a period of several days, though that, of course, could well be the case. Process indicates that a number of actions and hard work precede the actual decision.
6. These are the explicit issues of the discussion. But the underlying implicit assumption, and the compass within which they function, is the Christian life. The process of contemporary decisions is that reality out of which the Christian life is constructed. In fact the Christian life as a life of obedience to God's revealed will is unimaginable apart from a series of ethical decisions continually taken by the individual but also by a group of Christians.
POINT OF DEPARTURE
The area within which the process of ethical decisions operates its point of departure is the Christian life. This is not to suggest that the total Christian life consists only of ethical decisions. On the contrary! There are also religious decisions which have to be taken, decisions which are of fundamental, directional significance for the ethical decisions. And we shall therefore first have to take them under consideration. We do want to make clear that without faith the Christian life is not possible, for faith itself is life. And it is in the context of this existential faith-relationship with God that ethical decisions must be understood.
The Christian life is not the evolutionary development of natural life; it is the consequence of a radical, transforming event in man's existence. It has its origin in the cardinal recreative work of God's Spirit. Elected by grace, a converted person is recreated a new being; his heart is regenerated; his understanding is enlightened; his will is changed; his emotions are purified (John 3:3ff; Eph 2:5; 2 Cor 4:16; 1 John 2:29).
This whole operation is the beginning of the spiritual life. But the power with which the Spirit carries out God's plan of salvation is so amazing and thorough-going that man is not able to remain an astonished looker-on. He is changed into a joyful participant. The work of the Spirit upon and within him gradually becomes work done by him as well. In other words, he is himself set in motion by and geared into the Holy Spirit's great healing task. Therefore faith, as man's response to God's actions with him, is the first clear sign of growth in the spiritual life. In faith I let myself prevail, because God has prevailed over me (Jer 20:7); in faith I grasp, because I have been grasped (Phil 3:12); in faith I know, because I am known (1 Cor 13:12). Moreover, the ripening fruit of the Spirit's renovating work in man's heart becomes visible in repentance. As contrition for sin and thus the shunning of it and a turning to God, repentance is not a merely single act, but a continuous one. In obedience to God's word and his law, there is a constant abandoning of such sins as lovelessness, heresy, covetousness, and sexual offenses (2 Cor 12:21; Heb 6:6). Man is, of course, the active subject of this fleeing from sin and resorting to God, but he cannot do so except God takes the initiative and supplies the power. Hence the pleas of Jeremiah: "Bring me back, that I may be restored" (Jer 31:18), "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!" (Lam 5:21). As Peter asserts, Jesus gives repentance and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:31).
Another sign of growth is sanctification. Here, by way of obediently following Christ, man breaks through the continuity of his sinful, human existence as radically as he can, and the contours of the developing new life dedicated to God are drawn and stabilized as distinctly as possible.
It must be obvious now that ethical decisions have to do with sanctification, and thus comprise an inseparable part of the totality of the Christian life. Contemporary ethical decisions contribute to the necessity for the Christian life to be renewed and sanctified continually. James expressly warns his readers: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22). He then asks: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works?" (Jas 2:14).
To be doers of the word, to corroborate faith with deeds, makes a believer a stranger in the world (1 Pet 1:1). It is his radical obedience to God's word which gives his life a character different from what the world expects. At the same time it is a sign that the believer has not yet arrived at his eternal home. The believer must accept his alien status and live with it. At its deepest level, this is the consequence of God's words which Peter cites from the Old Testament: "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet 1:16).
But for a person to be able to live in this way there have to be norms which must be adhered to. Yet this raises the very problem we now need to examine.
THE PROBLEM STATED
Because the process of contemporary ethical decisions is an intrinsic part of the Christian life, the norms to be adhered to are to be found in Scripture. But this at once brings our problem sharply into focus. Between our world and that of the people in Bible times there are all sorts of distances: cultural, temporal, or linguistic. These distances can be stumbling blocks both in our understanding and in our application of the biblical message and our obedience to it. There are, of course, prescriptions in the Bible which can be applied directly to our time, such as: you shall have no other gods before me; honor your father and mother; you shall not murder; you shall love your neighbor.
Now, two serious problems arise: in the Bible some commands no longer apply; and for some issues today the Bible has no prescription. The Old Testament prescribes that the fat of an animal must not be eaten (Lev 7:23); that anyone gathering wood on the Sabbath is to be put to death (Num 15:32ff), so also with a son who curses his father or his mother (Exod 21:17). Interestingly enough, in Scripture itself there are changes to some norms. Several Old Testament ordinances had lost their validity by the dawn of the New Testament dispensation. So Peter, for instance, could eat animals previously declared unclean, and unholy, and therefore not for human consumption (Acts 10:10ff). As far as festivals were concerned, and what they might eat and drink, the Christians of the New Testament had much more liberty than the Jews of the Old Testament (Col 2:16ff). These changing norms are to be explained by the salvation- historical course of revelation. In making known his will, God took account of the historical circumstances of the people of Israel, as well as the standard of cultural development they had attained. He did not reveal everything to them at the same time. In revelation itself there was a progression, until it reached its culmination in Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile there has been such rapid advance in scientific and technological development that the pattern of our society and the demands it places upon us differ profoundly from what pertained in Bible times. We are confronted with moral issues that were completely unknown in those days: organ transplants, artificial insemination, test-tube babies, human rights, nuclear weapons.
The question is: in our modern scientific and technological situation can the Bible still be the authoritative source from which we derive the norms for our Christian life? In other words: Can twentieth century Christian life still be based exclusively on the Bible, without the inclusion of extra- biblical material? Is everything in the Christian life based solely on revelation so that everything can be related to a direct communication from God, recorded in Scripture? Or, in the actual formulation of the Christian life, is there not a great deal to be laid at the door of the individual believer's or the believing community's general insight and sound understanding, as a result of the Holy Spirit's operation?
SOLUTIONS PROPOSED
Without going into detail, we would refer to a standpoint which goes back to the early Christians, and which is still encountered today in certain circles. The Christian life, including the taking of ethical decisions, consists in emulating the way Jesus lived. Above all else, his life was one of service, trust, and love. And this is, naturally, the way Christians must live too. So the basic question the Christian must constantly be asking himself is: In my circumstances what would Jesus have done?
No matter how devout such an approach, it certainly cannot be a responsible basis for ethical decisions! Besides, Jesus' function on earth as the Mediator was so unique that no one could ever emulate him. All we can do is follow him in our situations, which he himself never experienced. The question as to what he would have done is here no help whatsoever.
Another solution has been proposed. The early Christian tradition divided the legislation in the Bible into three kinds of laws: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The first of these regulated the religious acts in honor and worship of Jahweh; the civil laws controlled Israel's political, social, and communal actions, its morality was circumscribed by the moral laws. In course of time this threefold division has been applied in different ways. It is more or less generally accepted that today the ceremonial and civil laws have lost their validity, but that we still owe obedience to the moral laws, and principally to the Ten Commandments.
This division and its application do not, however, provide a solution to our problem. In the first place, the Old and New Testaments do not recognize this or any other division. What is more, we have no warrant to simply divide the biblical legislation into three categories so sharply distinguished one from another.
Secondly, when two of the three categories are regarded as no longer valid, we must seriously question whether the authority of Scripture is not essentially impaired. If the whole Bible is God's word, then all the regulations in the Old Testament are an expression of his will for the nation's total life. If we are concerned with the formulation of a covenant-life which will honor him, that life surely cannot be restricted to a certain number of regulations, but must involve Scripture as a whole, which is and remains normative. Moreover the nature of that normativity is very closely related to the character and the message of Scripture, as well as to the course of salvation-historical revelation.
Thirdly, this division and the view that only the moral laws are still valid does not resolve the problem of the historical distance between the Bible and us today. The biblical milieu and our own in the twentieth century are historically so distinct that even ethical norms valid then can no longer be applied now, since problems arise now that were completely unknown in biblical times and for which no regulations exist in Scripture.
The solution must not, then, be sought in a differentiation between relevant and irrelevant scriptural norms. Certain hermeneutical guidelines have to be drawn up, in order to engage in making contemporary ethical decisions. To this we must now turn our attention.
BIBLICAL DIRECTIVES
As a general premise, and as the point of departure for determining as well as for applying the guidelines, we observe that God's revelation takes account of man. For this purpose, both individually and as a group, man is called and equipped by the Holy Spirit. Not only was man the addressee of revelation, precisely because revelation occurred for his benefit, but he was also responsible for the oral transmission and for the written permanence of the content of revelation, as he became presently its interpreter and concretizer.
In the context of divine authority
The norms for ethical contemporary decisions are found, not in the Apocrypha or in any other book, but in the Bible, thus acknowledging their revelatory status and consequently their divine authority. This fact determines fundamentally the way in which these norms ought to be dealt with. Israel is continually reminded that they come to her from none other than God (Exod 20:1; 21:1; Lev 17:1; 18:1; Num 5:1; Deut 5:6). At all times and in all circumstances she must demonstrate the necessary devotion in the process of understanding these biblical precepts.
The way in which Jesus dealt with the revelation in the Old Testament, and with the Decalogue in particular, was also vested with divine authority. He asserted that love is the summary of the whole law of Moses and of the prophets' teaching (Matt 22:40). Thus he placed all the commandments in the Bible within a particular framework: love for God and love for neighbor. By that statement he also indicated the deepest motivation for the so-called ceremonial, civil, and moral laws. So even the most elementary hygienic prescription to prevent infectious diseases in the camp of the Israelites were to be seen as an expression of God's loving care for his people (Deut 23:9ff). In order to prevent infectious diseases today, not those measures but others with the same motivation must be drawn up.
In the context of the total intention of the revelation
Because our concern is with God's will, which man has to obey, and this will has been and is still being made known to us in his revelation, we have to consider the total intention of the whole of that revelation - that is to say, special as well as general revelation. Here we restrict our discussion to special revelation, to Scripture. Single regulations and single texts may not be regarded as isolated legal prescriptions. Scripture is an organic unity; therefore no part of it may be understood detached from its position and function within the cadre of revelation history as a whole. Consequently a particular section must be expounded in the light of the whole, and the obscure parts in the light of those whose meaning is clear. Scripture in its totality must always be given its due, and where that does not happen, we find it being treated atomistically. We might also term it biblicism. Naturally, we have to work with texts - otherwise we could not understand the message of Scripture. But then we have to interpret the text within its contextual framework: the text is part of a pericope, the pericope part of a chapter; the chapter is included in a book, and the book is a section of a particular Testament; and together the two Testaments comprise the whole of God's salvation-historical revelation of his eternal counsel. Only within the structure of this circumambient unitary concept will the true message of an individual instruction or of a series of instructions be understood.
If now we link the first directive regarding the divine authority of Scripture with the second, the concern with Scripture's total intention, this is what it means: Even where there are no explicitly prescriptive sections, revelatory truths are embedded in normative structures, and these have to be recognized, formulated, and made concrete. One example must suffice. In Genesis 1:27 we read that "God created man as his representative, as the image of God he created man, male and female he created them." This simple statement that God created man in his image is not just a factual statement about man; it is also a normative judgement concerning him. The idea that man is the image of God has to be filled with content in the rest of Scripture: in all his actions, then, man must also be God's image.
Here the biblical writer relates the fact that humankind, male and female, has been created to be the image of God. The masculinity and femininity of human beings must equally be understood as normative. In God's creative purpose, then, a man must not try to become a woman, or a woman a man. Here, to our way of thinking, we are given basic information regarding the unacceptability of the phenomenon of homosexuality.
We must next establish in what terms the central message of Scripture is to be phrased. It is not an easy matter to find a single concept which expresses the basic message of the Bible. There have been various attempts: Jesus Christ, the covenant, the Christian life, God's gracious dealings with man, and so on. Personally, I would opt for the concept of the Kingdom of God. But whatever concept we select, the fact remains that the believer's life has been made new by God's Spirit, and so it must display a character different from the life of a non-believer. As far back as Old Testament times, the covenant people Israel was called to exhibit a life-style which in every way would be different from that of the surrounding pagan nations. In the same way the New Testament believers have to evince a distinctive lifestyle as proof and fruit of their redemption through Jesus Christ.
When we are concerned with the total structure of the biblical message, among the elements to be distinguished are the following:
1. The King's honor and glorification are paramount, while his universal kingship must ever be acknowledged and lived out (Matt 5:16; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 10:31; Matt 28:18).
2. The behavior of each believer (citizen) must always have a regard for and advance the welfare of every other believer - and of every other person, as a potential believer. Paul writes that believers must "apply themselves to good deeds, which are excellent and profitable to men" (Titus 3:8). What is involved here is, of course, the believer's correct disposition, motivation, and actions: love, service, justice and righteousness, respect, and truth. In the Old Testament Micah asserts:
He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? (Mic 6:8)
3. The believer has the obligation, not just to till the earth, but to care for it (Gen 2:15) as the common abode of those now living and of those yet to come (Isa 45:18). Pollution of the environment, threats to animal life, damage to the stratosphere - these are forbidden for the believer. In no circumstance may cultural development result in the destruction of nature.
4. Every ethical decision must not merely distinguish between good and bad (Heb 5:14). On the basis of this differentiation it must also be a decision against what is wrong, evil, and ugly.
In the context of a historical revelation of salvation
It is not in one single instant that God revealed to man everything he wanted to make known. The revelation unfolded in history. That is not to imply that the same truths and the same timeless rules and regulations were continually repeated in the course of history. Rather, in God's revelation itself there was a progressive development from its initial, embryonic phase to its full flowering in the saving facts of the incarnation of the Word, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the eventual commitment of writing down the revelation.
In this progressive development of the revelation, in which its full wealth and depth were gradually unfolded, as far as its prescriptive aspect is concerned, there are universal and contingent prescriptions. The universal prescriptions, which are not tied to any particular time, are those which apply to all people in all circumstances. Examples of these are that man must serve the living God and not other gods, that he must love and not hate his neighbor.
There are also contingent prescriptions pertaining to a particular period. These apply for this person or this group of people in these circumstances at this time. So in the shadow-service of the Old Testament there were many prescriptions which have since fallen away, because with the coming of Christ they were fulfilled. Whereas believers in the Old Testament had to offer animal sacrifices, be circumcised and celebrate Passover, believers in the New Testament are not obligated to observe such rites and practices. In order to make responsible contemporary ethical decisions in the light of the central message of Scripture, therefore, the historical distinctiveness of certain biblical prescriptions must be carefully differentiated from those which are universal.
We must clearly understand that, as a result of the change in the historical circumstances and in the historical nature of the prescriptions themselves, the forms of obedience also display a similar historical character. In other words, while obedience to the message of Scripture is still required, the forms of that obedience need not remain constant from one situation to another. Concretely stated: my love for my wife will be different (must be different) from my love for the lady who is my secretary.
In the context of their own historical situation
Up to this point our remarks have sought to trace the course of ethical decisions. What turns ethical decisions into contemporary decisions has not yet been made sufficiently clear. We need to discuss the particular historical situation.
To be a human being means necessarily to be placed in a situation. By the "situation" we mean that historically determined, temporal-spatial context of circumstances which belongs to the unique, unrepeatable reality of a person, and which forces him to make choices and take decisions. The situation is part of the history in which one finds himself/herself, and where they are called to act, even though this history stands under the providential guidance of God, and is the arena in which God makes himself known in his general revelation.
In order to take responsible contemporary ethical decisions, people must have a thorough knowledge of the situation in which they finds themselves: the challenges and dangers, the possibilities and limitations, but also and especially the situation's dynamic and the relationship between the situation and other events. No two situations are exactly identical, and so each situation presents people with new challenges. All times are not the same, nor do all times make the same demands on people (see Luke 5:33ff).
Man gains access to the mystery of the situation by letting the light of God's Word, assisted by the illuminating activity of the Holy Spirit, fall upon it. From the Spirit he receives the wisdom to sift out what is important and relevant. This must be understood in a double sense: the essence of the scriptural message must be discovered, and in the light of it the essence of our decisions in our modern situation must be determined.
That Scripture does not make provision for every possible situation in which man might find himself demonstrates that Scripture - God himself! - appeals to human understanding and insight, to man's freedom of choice, and to his responsibility for his actions.
With Christ's coming and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the New Testament believer (unlike his Old Testament counterpart) graduated to spiritual adulthood. In new circumstances the Bible's message has to be made concrete and signs of the kingdom have to be set up (Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:9-11; 5:13f). That the believer is actually able to do so is subjectively included in his inherent mental faculties of intellect and insight, value judgements and responsibility, and objectively guaranteed in the guidance of the Spirit, who, as the Spirit of truth, has been given to him (John 16:13). Scripture remains a lamp for our feet, a light on our path. But the one who would use the lamp and see the light does not close his own eyes! Scripture supplies the light which enlightens us, so that we are able to see clearly.
In the light of Scripture life's deep brokenness, man's sinfulness, and the sheer intractability of structures are all too evident (Rom 8:4ff; 6:12ff). At the same time we shall have to recognize the necessity for and the inevitability of making compromises and have the courage to do so.
In the context of the communion of saints
To be sure, each individual believer receives the Holy Spirit and may call on him for guidance. But then the individual believer can so easily misunderstand that guidance, wrongly expound the Bible as norm, and incorrectly interpret the demands of the situation in which he has to act. Fortunately, the individual is part of a wider community of faith. And while each believer must be fully convinced in his own mind of the rightness of his decisions (Rom 14:5; cf 1 Cor 8), he is not the only one to whom the Spirit gives guidance. This is why the collective judgment of the Church in the past and in the present is of supreme importance to the individual in his ethical decision-making. In this way the hazards of individualism are intercepted and overcome.
These five biblical directives are the most important but can be supplemented with others. We would stress that these directives must be viewed and be dealt with as a unit. Not that all of them will function in the same way in every instance. In certain cases some will have a more important role than others. Yet, taken together, all of them will constitute the reliable hermeneutical key in the process of contemporary ethical decisions.
One objection to what is offered here could possibly be that it is too general, and not practical or concrete enough, allowing for a great variety of and even mutually contradictory ethical decisions. We would respond by pointing out that we are concerned only with biblical directives and not at all with concrete prescriptions. That in any case would bring us very close to the peril of casuistry.
EXAMPLES OF CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL DECISION
The following examples of contemporary ethical decisions may demonstrate how the five hermeneutical principles set out above can be applied concretely.
1. NUCLEAR WAR
In the Reformed ethic, war is permissible as the ultima ratio. But when war is waged with nuclear weapons, we must seriously question whether that standpoint can be maintained. If, as experts allege, only one thousandth of the present stock of atomic bombs is sufficient to destroy all life on earth, and the earth itself would then be uninhabitable for human beings, this type of warfare must be totally prohibited. For such warfare runs absolutely counter to God's intention for man and for the earth.
2. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
In the light of Scripture Christians have a dual loyalty: to obey God (Acts 5:29), but also the state (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-17). Whereas obedience to God is absolute and unconditional, obedience to the earthly authority is not. This means that at a particular time the state through its actions can forfeit its right to obedience. Consequently, the Christian's task is to decide for himself when the state may no longer be obeyed, and what form his disobedience should take.
3. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE
In order to protect the country and its inhabitants, some people have to enlist in the military forces for a longer or shorter term. There can be no questioning the state's right to require this. But the citizen may deem the war the state is waging to be immoral. For example, if war is conducted on the basis of a racist national policy, the citizen cannot fulfil his military obligations. Here again the Christian has to study the actual situation carefully.
4. POPULATION INCREASE
The biblical injunction is clear: be fruitful and multiply. But now the rapid increase in the population, with its serious consequences of poverty, crime, starvation, shortage of medical services and housing, and unemployment, is forcing people to grapple with the far-reaching ethical problems related to family planning. In China the norm of one child per family has already been adopted. The Chinese Christian has to decide: is this ethically acceptable? and what about sterilization or abortion as an alternative method of birth control?
5. ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION
When it is established that conception cannot occur by the normal method of sexual intercourse, the semen is artificially introduced into the woman's uterus. If her husband's semen cannot be used, and another man's replaces it, the pain and anguish of childlessness are eased. So runs the argument.
But the Christian couple will have to decide if this does not impair the sanctity of their marriage. Would not the adoption of children be a more acceptable alternative?
6. TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OR NOT
Of course the Christian must speak the truth - see the ninth commandment! But what precisely is the truth? In the last world war Hollanders hid Jews in their homes, so that the Germans could not pack them off to the gas-chambers. What should a Hollander have answered, when a German knocked at his door and asked if he had Jews in his home? If he answered in the affirmative, did he not become an accessory to murder? and if he replied, "No," was it a lie - or was it a crisis-truth? As an adult Christian, here again he is called to deal with God's law in a responsible way.
7. TO KILL OR NOT
It is well known that Dietrich Bonhoeffer eventually abandoned his strong pacifist convictions, returned to Germany during World War II, and was active in the underground struggle against Hitler. He even took part in an attempt on the dictator's life. Bonhoeffer reckoned that he was acting responsibly, because what he was doing could possibly save the lives of millions of people. But was it a correct decision?
End Note:
1 * Johan Heyns is Professor Emeritus of Theology and Ethics at the Theological Faculty (B) of the University of Pretoria.