There are many forces that while not directly opposed to
each other find themselves in constant friction despite their many
similarities. United States politics are a prime example of this. Both sides
are interested in improving our union as a whole but both parties have very
different methods of seeing this happen. Before the two opposing views can even
meet and debate one another they must first win the approval of their various
parties, whether Democrat or Republican, by opposing one another. The opposing
points do not change much as the attack is usually centered on methodology and
ability to bring method into convention.
To the average citizen the terms politics and morality do
not appear to be synonyms and the institution for politics has all but ensured
this view with a constant attack on the opposing candidate’s moral fiber. Although
both parties have a common goal, there is a great deal of tension between the
two and this is normal when there is a dispute over methods and intent.
Politicians are not alone in experiencing moral tension as even today’s churches
find themselves competing with one another much to the same degree. Method and
intention continue to cause tension in the churches today all the while having
the same goal and waving the same banner or flag.
Methodology and intention are at the root of the tension between
those with a common goal. Politics can be a sensitive subject by itself but
when religion is involved the matter escalates tenfold. Opposing religious parties
can appear to be in complete opposition in this matter, i.e., an Atheist
compared to a Theist. Again there are two sides with many facets here and both
are attempting to show, in this case, a need for biblical ethics or a need to
reject biblical ethics. In the end many of the same tactics are used even
though a political office is not up for grabs. Just being “right” is
motivation enough for moral tension to exist and thrive.
We will reference Christian in place of Theist as this
will be the example of theistic faith used in the examples and research moving
forward. There is the hope of resolution, but a common method will be needed to
facilitate the process as opposing methods have failed thus far. The first
method is name calling and manipulation and this seems to be the most prominent
method. “Evasive responders will protect themselves by manipulating
relationships to their advantage. Sometimes this will include twisting the
facts to fit their arguments or circumstance” (Van Yperen, 2002, p.
127) [1].
It should be noted that this twisting of facts is used not with unethical
intent but rather as a form of promoting ethical behavior.
We teach children that name calling and lying are wrong
and will get you nowhere but as adults we seem to be unable to practice what we
preach. For the Christian the calling is not to speak maliciously but rather to
live a life worthy of the calling and in this actions are to speak louder than
words. This makes for an easy target as the Atheist is not bound by a moral
code whether written or unwritten; a law unto themselves provides the freedom
to speak without filter or even context. This freedom provides a platform for
the second method of conflict resolution simply called choice. In theory the
freedom to choose your own moral code and ethical standard is flawless; it is
the practice of it that leaves men in want.
Freedom is a cause many will rally behind, even willing
to give their life for it and therefore freedom carries with it a price. The
price is not always associated with one’s life but with our tolerance and this
price tag has been found to be too costly to settle on. Often the price is
associated with influence or position and these are commodities that have no
room for tolerance. “Jesus, like the prophets before him, often criticized the
powerful for ignoring biblical mandates of justice, faithfulness and mercy, and
covering it up with religious rationalizing” (Stassen and Gushee 2003) [2].
Christ did not attack the moral position of the Roman Empire or Atheists but
rather those that were given the honor of handling His Word. Position and
influence are indeed hard to let go of no matter the outcome.
This leaves our second method in want as it would call
for Christian to be as Christ and not get involved in civilian affairs all the
while turning the other cheek. For the Atheist this would necessitate a life
without conflict or animosity towards those that choose to lead a life of faith.
Being “right” without opposition is too attractive to simply let go of. Lastly,
we are left with conflict which takes many forms including war and death. This
last method has a rich history in the world ranging from World Wars, Holy Wars,
Civil Wars, protests and even bra burnings.
It is in our desire to defend what is right that we find
tension because who is to say what is moral or immoral after all? Morality is
an organic thought in that it can vary from time eras and societal situations.
It was not long ago women were unable to vote let alone run for the highest
office in the country. “Woman were considered irrational and men only were
endowed with the natural rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because of their perceived deficiencies,
women were degraded as persons and their liberties were restricted” (Clark and Poortenga 2003, 72) [3].
This fact is from our own progressive country’s history and yet it is clear
that this was well within the confines of ethical treatment of that time.
Many Atheists who refute that morality or ethical
standards should come from the Bible often use slavery as an example. It is an
easy example to use as our own nation can relate to the evils of our slavery
experience. It would be wise to avoid the three previous methods in order to
find resolution for both the Atheist and the Christian. All three methods mentioned
earlier have merit in some form but have failed to produce any real or lasting
peace. Perhaps we can rely on historical evidence rather than faith based
assumption in order to satisfy the Atheist and archeological facts to aid the
Christian in faith. Using both should at the very least reveal some
foundational truths that are undeniable unless we are to question historical
authors and authenticity.
The argument is clear and easy to follow which gives it
the appearance of credibility. If God is so moral and good why then is there a
complete permission for the evils of slavery? Often the Emancipation
Proclamation is used to show the progress that can be made in ethics if we
allow reason to prevail. It was indeed a hallmark of ethical
progression in US history but the need for such a proclamation is alarming. Many
atheists argue that since the nation was founded by men holding a Christian
faith this cleared the way for slavery in the United States.
This assumption is just that, an assumption. Bible texts
are clear and would have never allowed for slavery as the United States came to
know it. The Bible has several provisions concerning slavery including proper
treatment and a path to freedom both would bear no resemblance to the slavery
of the South.
“Kidnapping a person to sell as a slave was punishable by
death: ‘He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his
possession, shall surely be put to death’ (Exod. 21:16; see also 1 Tim. 1:10).
This biblical prohibition presents a marked repudiation of the kidnapping of
Africans that ushered in the era of more recent Western slavery” (GCU,
Lecture 1 2015) [4].
If the United States had
been founded on Biblical ethics there would have been no slavery in the form it
was accepted. While this answer is true it will not satisfy all as one could say
slaves would not have come from Africa or foreign lands but would have been
prevalent all the same. This may be true but if the Bible and God are to be at
the head of this movement towards slavery we must then understand what that
looks like.
For instance, slaves in Israel sold themselves into
slavery due to poverty (Lev. 25:39-40, 47) with a path to freedom in seven
years’ time. Slaves were Hebrews first and as such attended all Hebrew
celebrations they were also given the right to choose to stay with their master
after their seven years of service (Deut. 15:16-17). Consider the runaway
slave: “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to
their master. Let them live among you wherever they like
and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them” (Deuteronomy
23:15-16, NIV). Does this sound like the slavery experienced in the United
States? If a master caused injury to his slave the slave was released into
freedom (Ex. 21:26-27) and the master that caused physical damage to his slave
was punished (Ex. 21:20).
With just a few inconvenient truths concerning slavery as
recorded and practice by God’s people we can move forward as to why slavery
existed at all. The world the Hebrews found themselves in is one in which
slavery not only existed it was a staple of the times. The lines tend to blur
when we attempt to cross timelines in history and place our own societal norms
on an ancient culture. We do not ridicule the caveman for his barbaric methods
of hunting because they do not meet FDA standards for animal cruelty. It was
simply a different time and a different place with different ethical norms.
The Ancient Near East is also a different time and place
but even so God shows His concern for humanity by addressing slavery at an
ethical level. This care and love provided the framework for a lasting ethic
that has stood the test of time concerning slavery. Consider how the
progressive United States handled the slavery issue. “Despite the North’s
victory, the Emancipation Proclamation that preceded it (January 1, 1863), and
the attempt at Reconstruction in the South, many whites did not change their
mind-set in regard to blacks” (Copan 2011, 60)[5].
It starts to become clear that we were not comparing apples with apples.
While slavery was an accepted institution in the Ancient
Near East it should not be confused with the practicing of slavery in the world
outside of Israel. The Hebrew people came out of slavery, not only so but their
slavery was a vital part of their own heritage and history. There were times
for remembrance including the Passover feast that were built within the Hebrew
calendar as a constant reminder. Imagine if every slave owner in the South was
first a slave themselves adhering to the methods they were to later use. It
would not be a difficult stretch to think there may have been a radically
different South than the one now in our history books.
To be fair the characters of the Bible have made
themselves easy targets for those who would question the moral value of the
Bible. This is by design and falls in line with other ethical teachings given
by the Greeks who play a vital role in today’s understanding of ethics.
“When the new atheists draw assume Scripture’s moral
deficiency based on patriarchal trickery, Mosaic murder, or Davidic adultery,
they miss the point of the text. David, for instance, is not being portrayed as
an exemplum but as a mixed moral bag—similar to Greek tragedies in which
the hero has his deep flaws” (Copan, Is Yahweh a
Moral Monster? 2008) [6].
This is not a failing on
God’s behalf but a clear showing of His mercy and compassion towards His
creation and people. Even with an institution like slavery being practiced in
the Ancient Near East the people of God showed the world the path to lasting
freedom.
More important than understanding ethics is knowing how
and when to apply them. Of all the Ancient laws around them the Hebrew Law
shows compassion, love and mercy all the traits that the Atheist would suggest
the Bible lacks. For example the Code of Hammurabi would call for a minimum one
hundred lashes for a disobedient slave. The penalty is much more extreme in
other laws and codes of the Ancient Near East with no regard for the slave as a
human being. The Bible does have a penalty for acts of disobedience as it calls
for a maximum of forty lashes but it is the reason behind this that shows its
ethical value.
“If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge
shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number
of lashes the crime deserves, but the judge must not
impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than
that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3,
NIV).
The language used here to
describe a slave or any guilty party is brother and he should never be degraded
in their eyes. This is by definition called dignity.
Humanity
will be led astray as history has shown, for the Christian this is found in
Scripture and for the Atheist it is the trial and error of human progression.
For the Christian or Jewish believer we do not admire David or any of the many flawed human examples in Scripture because of their flawless righteousness but because of their relentless faith to repent and follow
our God. David is one of us and is misled often by trickery and this is
relatable to humanity as a whole. “He makes a suggestion that throws common
sense into conflict with faith. He incites David to do what every king should
do—know his military strength by numbering his troops” (Susek
1999, 112) [7].
Rarely are we deceived by the obvious but we can be convinced that the way
towards progression requires unethical thinking for the greater good.
The people do not represent the ethical values of the
Bible because they are people just as the Atheist is unable to find his utopia
on earth. In the Bible the believer has found the perfection of God our Creator
and in our Messiah Jesus empowering us to pursue that perfection. Method and
intention continue to cause moral tension on both sides of the ethics debate. When
we agree on a method, historical or otherwise, with the intention to find the whole
truth we can ease this tension and make real progress.
[1] Van
Yperen, Jim. Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict. Chicago, IL:
Moody Publishers, 2002.
[2] Stassen,
Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary
Context. Westmont, IL: IVP Academic , 2003.
[3] Clark,
Kelly James, and Anne Poortenga. The Story of Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2003.
[4] GCU,
Lecture 1. "HTH 610: Christian Ethics." Grand Canyon University.
Phoenix, AZ, 2015.
[5] Copan,
Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.
[6] Copan,
Paul. "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?" Philosophia Christi, 2008: Vol.
10, No. 1.
[7] Susek,
Ron. Firestorm: Preventing and Overcoming Church Conflicts. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1999.
