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. 

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers (Part Two)

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers 

(Part Two)

For the last two sessions I've covered principles for disagreeing with other Christians.  They are not always perfected by myself or anyone else.  But in general they are very helpful and serve as a foundation for how to disagree (yes, even with other believers).  The first was a series of principles from Tim Keller's book Center Church. Today is part two of twelve principles found in a book titled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. This post will cover the remaining six principles (Principles 7-12).  Some of these thoughts are initial and definitely not final but they are sort of thoughts in progress. 

7. Your freedom to eat meat is correct, but don't let your freedom destroy the faith of a weak brother or sister (Rom 14:13-15).

     A. Do I realize my theological or application position is correct but that it will effect others?
     B. I must personally not let my liberty on the text and translation issue harm other believers. In applying this to the text and translation issue (for which I think it probably doesn't) but does this imply that a weak believer on this point has added to or made part of orthodox Christian belief and practice an English translation of the scriptures? Does this also imply that all other Christians using any other English translation (not to forget Italian, French, or Spanish to name a few) are causing them to be destroyed?
     C. In what practical ways can I personally avoid ruining the faith of other genuine believers (especially as it applies to the text and translation issue)?
     D. How do I determine who is being schismatic, overbearing, or is simply teaching false views on the text and translation issue?

8. Disagreements about eating and drinking are not important in the kingdom of God; building each other up in righteousness, peace, and joy is the important thing (Rom 14:16-21).

     A. Is my position on the text and translation issue on the same level as eating and drinking?
     B. Can I build up other Christians using multiple translations? Consider some sub-points here:
          First, must building up believers be done in the context of a local church?
          Second, can it be done online or in another source of media?
     C. Can I build up other Christians within the constraints of their conscience on this issue?
     D. Am I willing to restrain my freedoms to build up other believers?

9. If you have freedom, don't flaunt it; if you are strict, don't expect others to be strict like you  (Rom 14:22).
     A. How should we define or describe flaunting? Is it even remotely fair to place on the same level one's liberty in music, alcohol, or smoking and reading an understandable English translation?
     B. Is trying to teach on this issue to be described as flaunting a freedom?
     C. On the other hand, if some people can only or will only (for whatever reason) use and/or endorse only one English translation, is it fair for them to expect all other to agree with them?  Consider some sub-points on this one:
          First, must an institution of higher learning (college, seminary) require all students to use the same English translation?
          Second, must a high school/middle school require the same standard?
          Third, should local churches do likewise for teaching and preaching?

10. A person who lives according to their conscience is blessed (Rom 14:22-23).

     A. If blessing comes from a clear conscience, should not we try to teach our conscience according to history, scripture, and right reasoning?
     B. Obviously we don't want people to violate their conscience. But consider, at what point is a refusal to even try to educate ones's conscience a stubborn attachment to traditions?
     C. At what point does a person's conscience overly bind themselves or others to the point where this new defined obedience standard is not required to achieve God's blessing on their life?

11. We must follow the example of Christ, who put others first (Rom 15:1-6).

     A. In what ways can Christ be shown towards those who clearly are in false teaching in this area?
     B. In what ways can Christ-like edification occur when only one English translation is allowed?
     C. In what ways did Christ practice a tolerance for and the same time liberty of OT quotation from both LXX and Masoretic text (one of which would directly offend the audience)?
     D. Is the text and translation issue truly a non-essential? Who determines whether it is a non-essential?
     E. Are their limits that even Christ taught and practiced toward those who disagreed with his practice of the OT? Did it ever reach a conscience issue level?

12. We bring glory to God when we welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us (Rom 15:7).

     A. Again, the parallel between days and meats and the text and translation issue might be a little strained here. If concepts or doctrines such as revelation, inspiration, preservation, or the like are actual doctrinal categories then can there really and truly be doctrinal liberty here? Is this really on the same level as things such as blue jeans, television shows, or reading Harry Potter? Can we agree to disagree on the Trinity or atonement? See the difference.
     B. Is this a legitimate application to a conscience issue? Can God truly be glorified if it is false teaching and not just a liberty or non-essential?

Well this article ends here.  I hope these three articles on disagreeing with other believers has been benificial. In the end, it is Christ that we must preach to a lost and dying world. It is only in him where we have eternal life. Preach from your Bible. Any Bible. Any translation (even the bad ones are still Bible--if you disagree then you just missed the value of these twelve points). Just preach and teach Christ.
 
Read your Bible. Enjoy. Comment as needed.

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues (Part One)

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues

These twelve principles originated in a book entitled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. In a previous thread (here), I used principles extracted from a book written by Tim Keller to address the most divisive issue among American Christians that I'm aware of, the Bible text and translation issue.  In that thread we were more focused on accurately representing the theological positions of other believers (would they agree with my representation, etc...).  Personally, I'm still certain no matter how accurate you try to be in representing others there is always a caveat or exception to a particular position (you probably even have an objection to my exception). Here we shall use Naselli and Crowley's principles to readdress this issue from a conscience perspective. These principles are extracted from Romans 14. A good overview of these principles is available online here.

My comments with each principle are areas of application I am trying to work out both theologically, practically, and an honest attempt to not be hypocritical in application. Again, my applications are entirely wrong if the text and translation issue does not belong in context of Rom 14 or even an overly-gentile understanding of the text may also be in error. Again, if certain positions on the text and translation issue are in theological or practical error, then it would not fit within the context of Romans 14. For a very thorough understanding of Romans 14, I recommend Mark Snoeberger's article, "Weakness or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14.1-15.13" DBSJ 12 (2007): 29-49.
My applications for this post will be listed as sub-points A. B. C. etc.... Please note I am trying to personalize them with the first person pronoun "I" while the Bold points are produced by Naselli and Crowley. Here are the twelve points (pp. 96-115):

1. Welcome those who disagree with you (Rom 14:1-2).

     A. I am to be personally kind and gracious to every believer regardless of their position on the text and translation issue, I'm afraid I struggle with this more than I want (too much John Owen I think).
     B. As much as it depends on me, I am to live at peace with everyone who holds to a different position on the text and translation issue. I may not be able to attend their church, definitely not membership, but I'll try to live at peace (just by way a reminder, this still implies they are holding to a historically orthodox position).
     C. At what point, theologically or practically, am I welcoming those with a different position on the text and translation issue an endorsement of erroneous teaching or practice? Let's flesh this out a bit with some illustrations (some of these should be easy to answer but I'm typing or "thinking" out loud):
          a. If I am a guest preacher at a local church should I be required to adhere to their public policy for preaching? If so for how long? Would addressing a wrong position be considered divisive? What false beliefs and practices might they have that are too taboo to speak against? Texts? Which ones?
          b. If I am sitting in the pew during a worship serve, and not preaching or teaching, should I still carry with me the same translation as the one being used in the pulpit? I've been through scores of churches and not done this and I had no following along. There was no confusion.
          c.  If I am joining a church, and the church's position is XYZ, must I agree with position XYZ? Similar issues to sub-points a. and b. above: preaching/teaching, sitting in the pew, etc.... Would it not be easier to simply attend a church that agrees with a certain position? Here's a thought: Is it wrong or even sinful to impose an English translation position on church members? I suggest listening to Mark Dever's sermon on the sinfulness of requirements like this before answering (I found it helpful).

2. Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don't (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to look down on those who who hold to a different position on the text and translation issue.
     B. So let's expand on the scenario from Rom 14. Using the text, the advocate who can only use or will only use one English translation is in which category: strong or weak? The strong have liberty to use any English translation. The weak feel compelled by theology, culture, family, traditions, familiarity or a potential host of other issues to only use one English translation: the King James Version.
     C. Again, I'm not quite sure this issue belongs here but for sake of exegetical consistency, which side of the argument does Paul come down on?  Was he weak or strong? Rom 15:1 states, "We who are strong..." Seems as though both here and as his consistent practice he falls down on the strong side. I know these because he freely quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Also he does not slavishly follow either one verbatim.

3. Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to be judgmental toward those who have even more liberty than myself on the text and translation issue.
     B. At what point do I begin to struggle with point A, users of the NASB, ESV, NIV, tNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT? At what point based on my current understanding of the academic facts on this issue do I personally feel a person, church, or denomination has gone too far? When does theological or practical compromise begin?
     C.  Am I willing to acknowledge that simply because I personally may not be able to use a certain translation does not mean others will share my concerns?

4. Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom 14:5).
   
     A. Am I fully convinced theologically and historically on the text and translation issue?
     B. Am I fully convinced that my position is the historical position on the text and translation issue?
     C. Am I academically willing to admit I may be wrong on the text and translation position?
     D. Am I willing to admit that the historical position on the text and translation issue might be wrong--basically meaning the vast majority of historical Christianity is wrong on this issue?
     E. What do we do when church members are not given the opportunity to be fully convinced or to have consciences that are truly informed on the text and translation issue and can function in a healthy manner?

5. Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom 14:6-9).

     A. Am I using or not using a particular English translation for the glory of God?
     B. Am I reading or not reading my Greek New Testament for the glory of God?
     C. I must assume that those holding to a different position on the text and translation issue are doing so to the glory of God. I must admit it is hard to grasp how some can hold to false historical position on this issue, refuse to be teachable, and yet still do this to the glory of God.
     D. Do I believe every translation in any language can be used to the glory of God? Or do I believe that only English can be used for God's glory? Oh what should we do for world missions?
     E. If I can't say "yes" to letter D. above then which of the four principles above am I struggling with? Not welcoming? Judgmental? Looking down? Not fully convinced?
     F. Have I crafted my own standards for what makes a good translation, then using my own standards for determining what translation I can use for God's glory (translations philosophy, grammar, vocabulary, etc...)?

6. Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom 14:10-12).
   
     A. Am I judging (looking down on) others for their views on the text and translation issue?
     B. Do I realize I will stand before God alone concerning my own position on the text and translation committee?
     C. Do I realize every member of our congregations will stand alone concerning their views on this issue?
     D. Since I will alone answer for my position on this issue, can I justly or honestly impose my standard on other members in a local church?
     E. I pray God's church is not try to bind the conscience of unsuspecting believers with their own personal views on this issue.
     F. People in our pews should have liberty to read their own Bibles without persecution (a Bible they can understand).

Well this has gone rather long and there are twelve principles. I guess that means I'll need another post to complete all twelve of these principles. in the end, read your Bible and see all the God asks of us.  See how he has revealed his mind to us on the pages of scriptures. At a minimum, God desires that all repent and come to a saving knowledge of the truth. He has made a relationship with him possible, through the sacrificial death of his son, to pay the pentalty our sins deserve.

Read your Bible. Comment as needed.

Book Recommendation: Conscience. What it is, How to train it, and Loving those who differ

Book Recommendation: Conscience. What it is, How to train it, and Loving those who differ by Andrew David Naselli & J. D. Crowley.

A 9Marks review of this book is available here.
A review on the Gospel Coalitions website is available here.
A review by Tim Challies is available here.

An excellent book launch video, additional reviews, and comments from one of the authors is available here.

Table of Contents

1. What is Conscience?
2. How do we define Conscience from the New Testament?
3. What Should You Do When Your Conscience Condemns You?
4. How Should You Calibrate Your Conscience?
5. How Should You Relate to Fellow Christians When Your Consciences Disagree?
6. How Should You Relate to People in Other Cultures When Your Consciences Disagree?
7. A Closing Prayer

Appendix A: Similarities between Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10

Appendix B: Conscience Exercises for Cross-Cultural Effectiveness

Summary from Amazon.com preview...

Christian, meet your conscience. What do you do when you disagree with other Christians? How do you determine which convictions are negotiable and which are not? How do you get along with people who have different personal standards? All of these questions have to do with the conscience. Yet there is hardly a more neglected topic among Christians. In this much-needed book, a New Testament scholar and a cross-cultural missionary explore all thirty passages in the New Testament that deal with the conscience, showing how your conscience impacts virtually every aspect of life, ministry, and missions. As you come to see your conscience as a gift from God and learn how to calibrate it under the lordship of Jesus Christ, you will not only experience the freedom of a clear conscience but also discover how to lovingly interact with those who hold different convictions. This book walks readers through relevant Scripture passages on the topic of concience—a largely neglected topic in the church today—to offer guiding principles and practical advice for aligning our consciences with God’s will.

Two other books on the conscience I have found to be helpful are the following:
Christopher Ash. Discovering the Joy of a Clear Conscience. P&R Publishing, 2012.
















Kevin DeYoung. The Art of Turning: From Sin to Christ for a Joyfully Clear Conscience. 10Publishing, 2017. A 9Marks review is available here; a review on the Gospel Coalition website is here.

Read. Enjoy. Comments encouraged. 

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to the One English Translation? (My Thoughts)

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to a One English Translation Position? (My Thoughts Only)

What actual ingredients would be necessary to free a person's conscience from believing only one English translation is appropriate?  Or to believe God has only preserved his word (providentially) in one English translation (or for that matter in only one Greek text)?  What steps are needed to help members of a local church to reach this ability?  This assumes that this position is even necessary or desirable.  Please remember this implies two things: one, they are not currently violating their conscience in using a different English translation; and two, the conscience can be taught, shaped, and re-calibrated via the scriptures.  

First, it begins with local church leadership.  The one pastor or lay-elders (whatever the polity), need to be involved proactively.  If your preaching displays that the text doesn't matter then don't expect the congregation to think otherwise.  If you actually preach and teach as though the text or underlying Hebrew and/or Greek matter, then perhaps your congregation will be more on board (but this is no guarantee).  Does the leadership actually teach the people?  Do they just throw a book at them to read?  Worst case scenario, the pastor wants to push ahead faster than the congregation.  Don't fall backwards if there is a church split (pushing too fast).  If people don't want to follow where you (alone) want to go, maybe you should slow down or rethink that particular route.  It would be much better to take things slower than to speed up and hit a wall.

Second, it begins with believers who desire to know the historic truth on the Bible translation position.  If they are content not knowing and remaining in that condition, it makes things very hard.  However, if the congregation is actually taught (through painstaking time and effort) to read and study the scriptures for themselves, this does present a better working environment.  It must be said that church attendance is not always a guarantee of Christian maturity (but you just got to wonder when some people never show up Sunday evening or Wednesday night).

Third, our standard for determining truth is not subjective experience.  It is the scriptures alone.  In God's providence certain English translations have been especially used of God in Christian circles.  From a sales perspective, certain translations have far outsold the others?  Some have even taken on their own distinct theological flavor (especially depending on who endorses them).    Remember not to confuse the theology or life-styles choices (evangelism, convictions, etc...) of the individual with the actual objective teachings of scripture.

Again these are just thoughts I have collected and experienced having lived in six different states within a multitude of different churches.  This also comes with graduate level seminary degrees from two different seminaries within fundamental Christian circles.  And yes there will always be overlapping agreements and alternative disagreements between schools.  Again I say this only because I've seen it really work well and I also have seen it turn our very ugly.  I've seen where people will not study, learn and grow.  I've also seen the reverse where people do grow and mature in their understanding of the historical position on the translation issue.  Just to be fair, even mature Christians will disagree on this issue.

As always, comments encouraged.

Voices from history on the Translation issue, 

(1910) "Inspiration is affirmed, of course, only of the original documents, now no longer extant.  Many mistakes may have been made by copyists, and some interpolations by officious scribes and translators are fallible.  It is the part of reverent criticism to seek, by careful examination and comparison of all existing documents, to detect errors and restore as far as possible the Scriptures in their original purity" (A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures, p. 21; Taken from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

(1910) "One evening he remarked that no one claimed verbal inspiration for the English Bible-although that was remarkably accurate-but only for the text of the original writings.  "Then," exclaimed a gentleman rising in the front seat, "if we cannot read the original we might as well have no inspired Bible at all."  "Well," replied the lecturer quickly, "my daughter, who is a missionary in Japan, recently sent me a photography of her child whom I have never seen.  No doubt it is not a perfect likeness.  Do you suppose that I said, as I looked upon it, that is not the original and therefore I might as well have no grandchildren at all?" (Arthur T. Pierson: A Biography; By Delaven Leonard Pierson, p. 284; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist, Greenville, SC).