Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Introduction

Actually to discuss this topic opens the door even for Christians to discuss what actually serves as the bedrock standard for doing right: ethically, morally, and legally. More often than naught it brings charges of legalism (an over-abused term) or its converse license. Christians are actually commanded and exhorted to do good (right). Our example for these references is found in the small epistle written by the apostle Peter. But even to use these epistle as the basis implies or presupposes my standard for doing right is God's self-revelation of himself in the Bible. It does touch or bear directly into issues such as the scriptures claims of authority and sufficiency. Consider a sampling as follows,

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." (1 Peter 2:15)(ESV)

"having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:16-17)(ESV)

"Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19)(ESV)

For Christians to do what is good or right requires a standard. For the Christian, that unchanging standard is the Bible. Unfortunately many today are swept along with whatever standard is produced, endorsed, and punished by the prevailing culture. And yes, this ever-changing standard even for many Christians is simply their own experiences and feelings. To begin a series on this topic I would like to consider also some of following definitions for these terms. What is moral, ethical, or even legal? To be honest, even using advanced search engines for the Biblical text such as Logos, there just aren't pages of Biblical references to terms such as ethical, moral, and legal. So principles and inferences, (yes, proof texting even), might be a better option unless we simply want to resort to imposing the Moral Law (not sure that went to well in the early years for the Pilgrims and those first winters). 

Ethics as defined by The Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns is "the science of morals." He goes on to elaborate in terms of human action: "motive" "standard" and "purpose." These three identifications he extracts from Cornelius Van Til. Barrett defines ethics in a similar manner, "the rules or standards that govern conduct." (Complete in Him: A Guide to understanding and Enjoying the Gospel by Michael P. V. Barrett, Appendix 4, p. 295). To add a third source, ethics is "the area of philosophical and theological inquiry into what constitutes right and wrong, that is, morality." (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by. Grenz, Guertzki, and Nordling, p. 47). Simply put the study of ethics helps us to evaluate both thoughts and actions which can be viewed as morally right and wrong.

If ethics is to involve what is moral then where can we find a standard for morals? Whatever it means to be moral is important. Cairns writes, "the moral law embodies divine directives by which God commands ... both in private and in public life." (Chariots of God: God's Law in relation to the Cross and the Christian, Alan Cairns, p. 28). I would like to expand on this definition. The moral law or even God's will for us today is found in the entirety of the 66 books found in the scriptures. If this is so true and simple then why do Christians disagree on ethical, moral, and even legal issues? Perhaps in a society with rights and privileges we as Americans don't understand having no privileges or rights. Just to complicate the matter, add in concepts such as "world view" and the individual "conscience" of each person.  

Applications to Consider

As we begin this series simply consider some examples. Where would YOU personally place them? Are there ethical, moral or even legal issues found in these examples? I am deliberately picking these examples because they are current and potentially future realities Christians can or do face.

First, should Christians obey the speed limit? Simple right? Have far above it is okay? Late for work, pregnant wife, wasn't paying attention, conscience issues, etc...? Try explaining obedience to a child who sees the speed limit sign "55 MPH." Doesn't that solve the problem? Does everyone perfectly do this? Why or why not?

Second, should I show up late for work or early? Standing around staring at you iphone (texts, emails, facebook) on work time? How about extra breaks? Longer lunches? What place do the state and federal employment policies have a say? Pay rates, injuries, and other related issues abound, but at what point do these items become issues?

Third, should Christians turn in or hand over their firearms if the government bans all firearms (not just "assault weapons" but revolvers, center fire, rim fire, muzzle loaders, etc...). No more hunting, self-defense period, not even a butter knife. Even the most peacefully and meek-appearing individual get their hackles all bent out of shape over topics like this. Imagine it as a reality--look at foreign countries where this is real. 

We could go on and one. Kids shots, doctor visits, schooling, records, military service, registering for the selective service, social security numbers, and more.... I am beginning to wonder whether some of these issues are simply character flaws or are they conscience issues? I would suggest a great many of these simply are conscience issues. You and I may disagree simply because they are not (or maybe they are) ethical, moral, and legal issues.   

Feel free to comment. I'll be working on this series for a while. 

New International Version (NIV): A Plea for Consistency from its Critics

New International Version: A Plea for Consistency from the Critics

(Series Part Two)

Introduction

My son recently purchased a green Ford Ranger as his first actual vehicle, including a manual transmission. In the process, he paid cash for the vehicle. It is a truck of course with all the bells and whistles that come with a owning a truck. Now suppose I start critiquing my son’s newly purchased truck. First, I start criticizing the fact that his truck gets less that 55 miles per gallon, is bad for the environment, and might cause someone somewhere to lose sleep about global warning. Second, suppose I also compare his truck to my red car stating my red car doesn’t blend in with the trees. Third, I get upset he can’t earn any credit for paying cash for his truck, because having good credit is so important. I can proceed to criticize his wide tires, standard transmission, or any other item that makes my car look so much better. But here’s the point: my son could have bought a car, but he didn’t. Why? He can’t put a dirt bike in the trunk of his clean red Honda Accord.

Argument

So many of the attacks against the New International Version (regardless of the year and edition). And to be fair even the ESV has undergone multiple editions (and yes the text is actually different in places). Any of the arguments used to attack or critique the NIV can easily be applied to any other English translation. Consider some examples before we look at actual examples. All these examples appear in explanations of why somebody’s church switched to the ESV. Let’s be clear though, I read the ESV every day including much Greek text study. So I’m not critiquing the ESV, NASB, or KJV, I’m making the point: let’s be consistent and not plead for double standards.  

As mentioned in the previous article, we can criticize translation philosophies of any translation (compare any two English translations: NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, RSV). They each will make choices and anyone can simply list all the differences with your favorite translation. Who determines what translation philosophy is more biblical? Which one “really” believes in plenary verbal inspiration? Do we really want to go down the road that only certain positions consistently believe in biblical inerrancy?  

We can identify English gloss inconsistencies in the same context as though it’s a fault. Quite frankly the same charges made toward the NIV could easily be made toward the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, or RSV. Simply look at the underlying Greek text and see if they consistently translate the same word the same way in each context. The truth is they don’t. This is simply not consistent. This line of reasoning assumes it is best to translate the same Greek word the same way when it appears in a similar context. Obviously, multiple committees didn’t think so now or in the past.

Let’s move on to adding or subtracting words from the English text. Every English translation (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NIV) includes phrases and/or terms they think best reflects the underlying Greek or Hebrew text. The NIV and obviously any English translation which did chose the words you would have used is of course wrong. Add to many words: wrong. Don’t use enough words: wrong. You lose both ways. No one maintains a word for word pattern. No one can win with this everchanging standard. Can we at least admit we simply compare their favorite English translation with the NIV? If we want to list all the additions and subtractions, let’s at least be consistent and list the ones in your own pew or pulpit.

This is the last one I’ll address in this article. The charge is simple: Preaching is just not as easy with the NIV. This is actually contrary to the very reason the NIV translators produced the NIV. Older translations were harder to understand for preaching and evangelism. To be fair and accurate, I’ve listened to scores of sermons from multiple churches and preachers and this critique is just not fair. Thousands of sermons are listened to each year, all claiming to be expository sermons. Quite frankly the English text they used for their sermon outline, preaching applications, or even illustrations had nothing to do with the underlying text. I’m actually surprised to see the number of supposedly expository sermons which go no further than quoting scripture or simply rereading sections of the text. This argument is simply not consistent.

Conclusion

None of the complaints made toward the New International Version are consistent. They could easily be applied to any English translation of the Bible. Translation philosophy is simply a straw man to attack. Using more words or less words in a translation is simply not consistent. Finally, based on hundreds of sermons I’ve personally heard from evangelicals themselves, the exact text wording has no effect on the outcome of their supposedly expository sermons. Thus far I have been less than impressed with the inconsistently applied standards for attacking or critiquing the New International version. But don’t worry we’ll still address the so-called gender-neutral attack on the NIV. Whatever standard we use to criticize the NIV is fair game to also criticize the chosen preferred translation of others. We’ll see how well they stand up.