Introduction

Ethics is what is normative, absolute. It refers to a set of standards around which we organize
our lives and from which we define our duties and obligations. It results in a set of imperatives
that establishes acceptable behavior patterns. It is what people ought to do. By contrast, morality
is more concerned with what people do. It describes what people are already doing, often
regardless of any absolute set of standards.1
When ethics and morality are confused and mixed, the result is that the culture makes the
norms. The standards become relativistic and changing. That which is the norm is identified with
that which is the absolute. The absolute standards are destroyed by the fluid nature of the culture.
Relativism triumphs over the absolute.
This is where modern culture is today. We determine the norm of human behavior through
statistical studies, like the Kinsey report2 did on human sexuality. Behavior the Bible condemns
(e.g., adultery, homosexuality) is practiced widely, statistical analysis demonstrates. Therefore,
since this behavior is widely practiced, that becomes society’s norm and therefore its ethical
standard. Ethics becomes a relativistic, floating set of patterns that determines our duty and
obligation. Nothing is absolute, and nothing is forever. What the culture thought was nailed
down is not. It is as fluid as a changing river.
The Bible will have none of this. The deep-seated conviction of the Christian is the
proposition that God exists and that He has revealed Himself. That revelation is verbal and
propositional; it is contained in the Bible. That revelation contains the absolute set of standards
rooted in God’s character and will. He knows what is best for us because He created us and He
redeemed us. Therefore, His verbal revelation contains the absolute standard on which we base
our lives and construct our duties and obligations to the family, the church, and the state.
To God ethics is not a set of fluid standards. It is a set of absolutes that reflects His character
and defines human duty. He wants us to love Him and love our neighbor as ourselves. This twin
injunction is a powerful example of duty to God and duty to other humans. It is an imperative for
all humans. It constitutes a supernatural window into what is good, right, just, and perfect. As
Erwin Lutzer has argued, “We must be willing to set aside temporarily the question of what
actions are right or wrong to focus on a more basic question: What makes an action right or
wrong?”3 That is why God has the right to say to us, “Be holy for I am holy.” He, the Creator,
sets the standard against which we must measure all behavior.4
Ethics is concerned with the way we ought to conduct our lives. Clearly, then, it is an
integral part of biblical revelation. From Genesis to Revelation we find principles, precepts,
commands, warnings, guidelines, and counsels that are intended to steer our lives toward that
which is right, good, and God-honoring. The apostle Paul tells us that Scripture was given not
1
R. C. Sproul, Ethics and the Christian (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1986), 9-22.
2
The Kinsey report was a massive human sexual behavior study conducted by Alfred Kinsey and first
published in 1948. The report remains very controversial, and Kinsey’s data collection methods have been
called into question many times.
3
Erwin Lutzer, The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes (Dallas, Tex.: Probe, 1981), 14.
4
James P Eckman,.: Biblical Ethics : Choosing Right in a World Gone Wrong. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway
Books, 2004 (Biblical Essentials Series), S. 6

1
only to reveal God’s way of salvation but also to train us in righteousness and equip us for
“every good work” (2 Tim. 3:14–17).
As the people of God blessed with the Word of God, we must receive God’s ethical
instruction in full submission and wisdom. As those who have been shown mercy in Christ, it is
our great joy to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling” that is ours in him (Eph. 4:1). This
essay seeks to encourage such ethical integrity by highlighting four aspects of the ethical
teaching of the Bible: its importance, its purpose, its foundation, and some of its salient
characteristics.

The Importance of Biblical Ethics

At the very outset of creation, God himself introduced ethics when he repeatedly declared
his own work “good” (Genesis 1) and proceeded to give Adam and Eve responsibilities to fulfill
(Gen. 2:19) and standards to live by (Gen. 2:15–17). Then, after rescuing Israel from bondage
and choosing her as his special possession (Ex. 19:1–6), God began his relationship with the
elect people by giving them an ethical charter to govern their behavior toward him and among
themselves (Ex. 20:1–17). This basic code was expanded in the rest of the first five books of the
Bible, the Torah (meaning “law” or “instruction”).
Centuries later, when Jesus appeared on the scene to usher in the climactic phase of
redemptive history, he too started out by issuing an ethical manifesto to provide guidance for the
conduct of his disciples (Matthew 5–7). Called the Sermon on the Mount, this charter took ethics
to a whole new dimension, while also reasserting the essence of what the Old Testament Torah
had always intended. At the heart of Jesus’ ethic is the call to love God and others (Mark 12:28–
31), a call that resounds through the rest of the New Testament (1 Cor. 13:1–3; James 2:8; 1 Pet.
4:7–8; 1 John 4:8).
When we come to the final moment of salvation history, with the establishment of the
new heaven and the new earth (Revelation 21–22), we hear the ethical note once again. But this
time ethics has reached its highest peak with the triumph of good (1 Cor. 15:27; Rev. 21:1–8),
the defeat of evil and suffering (Rev. 20:7–10; 21:4), and the restoration of humanity in the
presence of God (Rev. 21:3, 22–27).
Along with this brief overview of ethics in the biblical story line, the importance of ethics
is further highlighted by the high value God places on the ethical life. For the Old Testament
prophets, for example, any act of worship that is not accompanied by acceptable ethical behavior
is futile and offensive to God (Isa. 1:1–10; 58:5–10; Amos 5:21–26). Moreover, the Bible
condemns those who subvert ethics by calling good evil and evil good (Isa. 5:20) and says that
right belief must express itself in right action (James 2:14–26). Clearly, it matters immensely to
God that we believe rightly and live rightly!

The Purpose of Biblical Ethics

Besides stressing its importance, Scripture underscores the practical purpose that ethics
serves. In the preceding section we saw that one important payoff of the ethical life is the
authenticity it imparts to worship. But the Bible adds three insights to this.

2
 The first concerns the validation of our Christian identity. According to Jesus, when
our lives exhibit the ethics of love, we demonstrate to the world that we belong to him (John
13:34–35) and we reinforce the claim that we are sons and daughters of God (Matt. 5:44–45).
The second is seen in Jesus’ assertion that the ethical life glorifies God. Jesus teaches
that when our light shines before people, they will see our good works and glorify our Father in
heaven (Matt. 5:16). Moral integrity honors God.
The link that Jesus makes in this verse between ethics and witness supplies the third
insight: ethics is a means of Christian witness and mission. We find this theme throughout the
Bible. For instance, in Genesis 12:3, God chose Abraham to be a blessing to the nations. But
later on God said that the fulfillment of that promise was linked with the Abrahamic family’s
willingness “to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen. 18:19).
In Psalm 72, the psalmist prays that Israel’s king would fulfill his ethical obligation so that the
nation may prosper and realize her missionary calling (Ps. 72:1–17). Peter and Paul echo the
same theme when they assert that the positive influence Christians can have on society depends
upon the kind of ethical lives they live (Phil. 2:14–16; 1 Pet. 2:11–12).

The Foundation of Biblical Ethics

For Christians, an even greater incentive to explore biblical ethics is the fact that ethics
finds its foundation in God himself. Biblically speaking, it is God, as Creator of a morally
ordered universe, and as an absolutely perfect being, who is the author of morality (Gen. 2:17). It
is God who endowed the creation with norms and standards and holds its inhabitants answerable
to him (Gen. 3:17; Ps. 33:13–15). In biblical terms, then, ethics is not a human invention. It is
rooted in God himself.
Moreover, according to the Bible, God supplies ethics with not only its source but also its
anchor. This anchor is found in the worldview that emerges from the story of salvation that God
tells in his Word. This worldview says that God created us in his own image (Gen. 1:27). We fell
and profoundly disturbed the condition of well-being that existed under God’s rule (Gen. 3:8).
But we were redeemed by a gracious God (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 3:22–25). This view is crucial for
ethics. For it is the image of God that provides the basis for the Bible’s teaching on such issues
as the sanctity of human life (Gen. 9:8–17), the equality of all humans before God (Job
31:15; Acts 17:25–26), and the intrinsic worth and dignity of all people. Similarly, one major
reason the Bible insists on sexual purity is the doctrine of redemption, which says that the
redeemed no longer belong to themselves but to God, who dwells in them by the Holy Spirit (1
Cor. 6:18–20).

Some Characteristics of Biblical Ethics

We close by highlighting six features of biblical ethics.

First, biblical ethics is covenantal or communal. It exists for the people of God. While
all people are morally accountable to God, the Bible teaches that the ethical life portrayed in
Scripture is intended especially for those who are in covenant relationship with God. The
Sermon on the Mount, for example, reveals this (Matt. 5:1–2). Likewise, the love ethic, the
cornerstone of the New Testament’s moral teaching, is placed squarely on the shoulders of
believers (John 13:34–35; 1 Pet. 4:8; Heb. 13:1).

3
 Second, biblical ethics is grace-motivated. “We love because he first loved us” (1 John
4:19) is the consistent rhythm of the Bible. What God has done for us, supremely manifested in
Christ, is the foundation for what we then do for God. God’s acceptance of us as his children
results in ethical living; ethical living does not result in God’s acceptance of us. Throughout the
Bible, upright living does not lie essentially in believers’ exertion of willpower but in the
spiritual and moral transformation brought about in them by the gospel (1 Cor. 6:9–11; see Rom.
1:16–17) and the ongoing work of the Spirit in their lives (Rom. 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 2:14; 3:3).
Third, biblical ethics is transformational. The ethical life described in the Bible is one
that is energized by something more profound than mere behavior conformity. Rather, biblical
ethics stems from the inner life, what the Bible calls the heart. It is an ethic generated by a law
written on the heart (Jer. 31:31–33) and the animating impulses of the indwelling and sanctifying
Spirit (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22–25). This is fundamentally an internal rather than external ethic
(Matt. 5:27–28; 6:1; 15:18–20). It goes beyond mere conformity to a written code (Matt. 23:25–
28; 2 Cor. 3:6).
Fourth, the ethics of the Bible is countercultural. It is “against the grain.” Whereas the
surrounding culture conducts its life largely in ways that result from the fall, those who are in a
covenant relationship with God are called upon to conduct their lives according to the new
identity that flows from that gracious relationship (Ex. 19:5; 1 Pet. 2:9–12). This does not mean
rejection of existing cultural values but radical assessment and, if necessary, replacement of
those values in light of the kingdom into which believers have been drawn by God’s grace (Rom.
12:1–2). Jesus demonstrates this principle in his teaching on loving one’s enemies (Matt. 5:43–
44), on materialism (Matt. 6:19–24), and on non-retaliation (Matt. 5:38–42). Paul also follows
this countercultural principle in his teaching on sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:12–20; Col. 3:5–6), the
equality of people before God (Gal. 3:28–29; Col. 3:11), and concern for others (Phil. 2:1–3).
Fifth, biblical ethics has an integrative character. Reaching into every corner of human
living, the system of ethics taught in the Bible touches belief and conduct (Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph.
4:17–24), private behavior and public morality (James 1:27), personal piety and communal
justice (Jer. 7:1–11; Mic. 6:6–8). This characteristic is due to the saving framework in which
believers now live—they have been given a wholly new identity (Romans 6; 1 Pet. 2:9–10).
Their ethical life therefore cannot be set off from other aspects of living.
Finally, there is a sixth element of biblical ethics: its eschatological character.
Biblically, ethics is shaped and motivated by what God has done in Christ and what he promises
to do in the future. The new age longed for in the Old Testament has dawned in Jesus, but it has
not yet been brought to full completion. Biblical ethics, then, is really an interim ethics: it is for
those who live between the times (Titus 2:11–14; 2 Pet. 3:13–14). Followers of Christ pursue
holiness by looking back and by looking forward. We look back to what God has done, sending
his Son, uniting us to Christ, and placing his Spirit within us. And we look forward to what
God will do, as Christ returns a second time to execute justice and finally redeem his people from
all sin and suffering.5

5
Adapted from Dieumeme Noelliste Biblical Ethics: An Introduction. [Link]
study-bible/biblical-ethics-an-introduction

4
 Does the Bible Offer Guidance for Contemporary Ethical Issues?

By C. Ben Mitchell

The short answer is that, as the apostle Peter told the faithful Christians in Asia Minor:

“[God’s] divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the
knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence . . .” (2 Peter 1:3).
In other words, God has not left his people without guidance in every area of life.
Although the Bible is not a science textbook, its message speaks to the deep underlying values
that can guide decisions about scientific matters. Although the Bible is not a manual of medicine,
its truths may be applied to medical decision-making. Although the Bible is not a policy manual,
its principles may inform how we think about government and politics.
Christians have understood the role of the Bible in ethics in a number of ways. Here are a few of
the most prevalent views.

1. The Bible as Law Code

Some Christians understand the Bible to be a book of eternal laws. They argue that if
people want to know what to do, they should consult and obey the commandments and
ordinances of the Old and New Testaments. Find a rule and follow it.
The problem with this method of applying Scripture is that the Bible is much more than a
book of rules. The 66 books of the Old and New Testaments also include historical, wisdom, and
prophetic literature. There are also songs, poems, and letters. Christians must take seriously the
complex variety of ways and times in which God has revealed his will. Simply finding a rule and
following it is insufficient.

2. The Bible as Universal Principles

Another common way of approaching the biblical material is to view it as a source of
principles to be discerned for ethical decision-making. This view acknowledges that the Old and
New Testaments are historically situated and cannot always translate easily into a contemporary
context. So these Christians attempt to discern the underlying principles that they believe inform
those commandments.
The danger in this is that the task of identifying the principles depends on our
discernment. We must be very careful that we have perceived and applied them correctly. This is
not always easily done.

3. The Bible as Community Narrative

Some scholars emphasize the Bible as a grand narrative, a sacred story of God’s
redemptive acts among his people. Living faithfully, they argue, means situating oneself in the
story and living accordingly. The people of God—the church—are to see themselves as
participants in this grand narrative.

5
 But, as we have already seen, the Bible is not only narrative. Some of the Bible is
didactic, some is poetic, and some is epistolary. Scripture includes timeless rules, like the Ten
Commandments and robust principles, like the principle of holiness. The problem with
understanding the Bible as merely a story, however, is that one may be tempted to neglect those
timeless rules and enduring principles.

4. The Bible as a Canonical Revelation of God’s Commands, Principles, and Virtues

The Bible should be understood, I would argue, as a canonical revelation of God’s

commands, principles, and virtues.
The Bible is God’s revelation and is a sufficient guide for knowing his will. God has
made himself and his will known in the person of Christ and in the scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments. Accurate interpretation and proper application requires that readers attend to the
type of literature, the historical context, and the aim of each of those texts.
God’s moral instruction comes to us in the form of commands and principles, and is also
revealed in Christian virtues and examples. No one can deny (or should) that the Bible contains
rules or commands. The Ten Commandments, for instance, stand as a lasting testimony to God’s
will for human flourishing. Likewise, enduring principles can be derived from the biblical
witness.
Even though, for example, the Bible does not include a direct commandment forbidding
the use of human beings as experimental guinea pigs against their wills, the principle of human
dignity, grounded in the image of God, applies. Because we are made in the image of God,
research should not be done on human subjects without consent.
Furthermore, not only does the Bible contain eternal commandments and universal
principles, it also contains biographies of virtuous individuals—most notably Jesus of
Nazareth—and descriptions of virtues to be cultivated by his followers. God has revealed himself
in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh (John 1). In the person of Christ we see the epitome of a
virtuous human being. As both fully divine and fully human, Jesus is our exemplar.

Conclusion:
So the Bible has much to offer believers as they seek to obey the Lord in every area of
life, but it is not always as easy as matching one Bible verse with a problem. Careful attention
must be paid, then, to discern the commands, principles, and virtues that apply in a particular
context.

Steps for Finding Ethical Guidance from the Bible:

1. Pray for divine illumination

2. Define the ethical issues or problems

3. Clarify the issue to be examined

6
 4. Glean all scriptural data on the issue with attention to:

o Commandments

o Principles

o Examples

5. Study the scriptural instruction carefully with attention to:

o Genre

o Literary style and organization

o Definitions and grammar

o Context

o Overall theme, purpose, historical significance

6. What does the text say in its context?

7. What does the text mean today?

8. Apply the biblical instruction

o Engage in dialogue with the community of the faithful

o Study the history of Christian ethics

9. Formulate a Christian ethical position

This article is adapted from Ethics and Moral Reasoning: A Student’s Guide by C. Ben Mitchell.

7
 Contemporary Ethical Issues
Abortion

There is no consensus in the culture about when life begins. God’s revelation in the Bible,
however, has spoken to this issue. A thorough examination of His Word reveals that God views
life in the womb as of infinite value and in need of protection. The challenge is that people in
most areas of the culture—law, politics, and even religion—refuse to heed God’s clear teaching
on this issue.

A cluster of verses in the Bible clearly establish God’s view of prenatal life:
• Exodus 21:22–24—“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that
she has a miscarriage … he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand.… But if
there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Whatever these difficult verses mean exactly, God views life in the womb as of great value.
Whether by accident or by intent, to cause a woman to miscarry demands accountability on the
part of the one who caused it. The Law did not treat the fetus frivolously.
• Isaiah 49:1, 5—“The LORD called Me from the womb; from the body of My mother He
named Me.… the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant.”
Referring to Messiah, God called Him for His mission from the womb. Prenatal life is
precious to God.
• Jeremiah 1:5—“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I
consecrated you.”
• Luke 1:15—“[H]e will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” As
with Isaiah, God viewed Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb as of infinite value. He
even filled John with the Holy Spirit when he was in Elizabeth’s womb.
No other passage deals with the question of prenatal life so powerfully and conclusively as
Psalm 139. In this wonderful psalm, David reviews four phenomenal attributes of God—His
omniscience, His omnipresence, His omnipotence, and His holiness. In reviewing God’s
omnipotence, David reviews God’s power in creating life, which he expresses as God weaving
him in his mother’s womb. God made his “frame,” his skeleton. Then, in verse 16, he writes,
“Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance.… ” Undoubtedly, David is referring to the
embryo. If correct, then the divine perspective on life is that it begins at conception. So awesome
is God’s omniscience and His omnipotence that He knew all about David even when he was an
embryo! This is God’s view of prenatal life. Therefore, abortion brings God’s judgment.

Ethical Questions Relating to Abortion

1. Is the fetus a human being? At conception, all aspects of humanness, as defined by DNA,
are present. Genetically, it is quite difficult to argue otherwise.
2. Is the human fetus a person? This is a question increasingly pressed today. The biological
term life has been exchanged for the legal term person. This is a critical switch because only
persons have rights, including the right to life. Paul and John Feinberg argue in their book that at
conception the DNA strands of the embryo are species-specific. Furthermore, although the fetus
is dependent upon the mother, he or she is an independent individual. Also, there is substantial

8
identity between the embryo, the viable fetus, the infant, the child, the adult, and the elderly
person.6 The fetus is a person.
3. How do the rights of the fetus relate to the rights of the mother? some cultures are so
totally focused on the rights of the mother that it gives no thought to the rights of the fetus. As
this chapter has shown, this is wrong. There must be a balance of rights. Somehow Christians
must make the case for protecting the rights of the unborn child. Paul and John Feinberg have
suggested a starting point:
While it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to convince a pro-abortionist of the personhood
of the fetus, nevertheless from a purely ethical point of view it still makes sense to demand that
human life should not be arbitrarily terminated, particularly when less dramatic solutions exist.
Such solutions should be sought on the side of both the fetus and the mother. Having once been
conceived, the fetus has no choice but to grow, just as it had no choice in its conception or its
blond hair or blue eyes. Hence, the fetus is without recourse or remedy. The same is not true of
the mother, who has at least three alternatives other than abortion. She can exercise initial will
power by abstinence, which is grossly out of fashion today. She has the option to use
contraceptives to prevent the unwanted child. And finally, given the birth of the child, the mother
can allow the living but unwanted infant to be put up for adoption.7
Abortion is, therefore, an unacceptable practice from God’s viewpoint. He views prenatal life
as of infinite worth and value. To wantonly destroy it is to destroy what He views as precious.
our society may have the legal right to enforce abortion, but it does not have the ethical right
before God to do so. Is it a modern holocaust? With approximately 4,000 abortions every day of
every year8 since 1973, it is difficult to argue otherwise. Multiply it out. That’s 1,460,000 human
babies killed per year.

6
Paul and John Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1993), 58.
7
Ibid 71-72
8
Marvin Olasky and Joel Belz, Whirled Views (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1997), 27.

9
 Abortion and Special Problems

In the previous section, we argued that there are many good reasons, biblical and philosophical,
for thinking abortion is prima facie morally wrong. Hence, there must be some morally
compelling reason to permit an abortion. Certainly, abortion for reasons of convenience is
immoral.
Important ethical issues typically have hard cases. We intentionally did not discuss abortion’s
hard cases in the last chapter. The reasons are twofold. First, these cases never should be the
basis for developing normative ethical principles. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad laws.
That is true in law, and it is equally true in ethics. Second, consensus on these issues will be
harder to reach since what is ethically right is more difficult to decide. Still, they must be
addressed, for it is often in these matters that we need the most direction.

Abortion To Save a Mother’s Life

Is abortion ever justified when the developing fetus is a threat to the very life of the mother? We
begin by noting a view that is not very popular today, but once was defended particularly in
certain Roman Catholic ethical circles. It is the view that one is never justified in taking a life.
There is a difference, so the argument goes, between taking a life and letting one die. The former
is never a moral option; the latter may be. If one simply does nothing in a case where mother
and/or baby are endangered, and one or both die, one has simply let them die. This was the best
that could be done in this case, and at least no life was taken. It is not hard to see why this view
is unpopular today. One runs the risk of losing two lives, when it seems quite clear that one could
be saved.
If one rejects the position just mentioned, where does that leave us? We think a lot depends
on the nature of the mother’s problem as well as when in the pregnancy it occurs. However, we
believe that whatever one decides, one must remember that both the mother’s life and that of the
unborn child are precious to God. Thus, every effort should be made to save both lives. This is
also why it is important to have a pro-life doctor who will not counsel abortion at the first sign of
difficulty in a pregnancy.
As to specifics, if the problem occurs late in the pregnancy, the child can likely be taken
prematurely without dying, i.e., probably both lives can be saved. If the mother’s illness is
diagnosed early in pregnancy, treatment should be delayed as long as possible and the baby taken
prematurely. Of course, a lot depends on the nature of the illness. In some cases both lives cannot
be saved. However, with advances in medical technology the number of times one life must be
lost is rare indeed. As mentioned in the previous chapter, ectopic or tubal pregnancies and cancer
are the most common cases where a life will be lost. With ectopic pregnancies, the baby’s life
must be taken, for the baby is developing outside the uterus, and without intervention both
mother and baby will die. Intervention must come so early in the pregnancy that even if a mother
wanted to save the baby, the baby would be too premature to survive. In cancer cases where
treatment for cancer or the removal of the cancer would terminate pregnancy (as, e.g., with
cancer of the uterus), we think commencement of treatment for the mother is morally
permissible.2
2
Paul B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1987), pp. 169– 170.

10
 This has been defended in a number of ways. Some have argued that there are important
similarities to self-defense, and if that is morally justifiable, so is an abortion of this kind.
However, we believe there are important enough differences from self-defense to reject this
argument. Others defend taking the child’s life on the ground that the mother is an actual person
and the child is only a potential person, and the rights of actual persons outweigh those of
potential persons. We find this argument quite unconvincing as well. A person is a person, or he
or she is not. Furthermore, if the unborn baby’s rights as a potential person are outweighed by
those of actual persons, this seems to reopen the door to abortion for any reason, including
convenience. We find that thoroughly objectionable.
Still, we believe there are principles that justify taking the baby’s life in this case. One is that
if it is possible to do good to someone else without endangering or harming oneself, one is
obligated to do so. Otherwise, one is not so obligated. As applied to this case, this rule means the
mother is not morally required to give up her life to save that of the baby. The other principle
mentioned in our first chapter is that one is not morally responsible for failing to do what could
not be done or for doing what one could not fail to do. That is, one is not guilty for failing to do
something if one is not free to do it. In this case, it is not possible for the mother to save both her
life and that of the baby. But then, she is not morally culpable if she doesn’t do both. Granted
that she cannot do both, the first principle shows that she need not save the baby’s life instead of
her own. Of course, it is also morally permissible for her to decide to put off treatment until the
baby is born, even if that course of action shortens her life. As noted in the previous chapter, this
would be an act of supererogation (beyond the call of duty). Such an act of courage and love is
morally praiseworthy and certainly morally permissible, but it is not her moral obligation.3
Before leaving this issue, two words of caution are in order. First, we repeat that in light of
advances in medical technology, the actual number of cases where the life of either mother or
baby must be sacrificed is very small indeed. Second, abortion to save the mother’s life has been
called therapeutic abortion. In the current discussions on abortion the meaning of “therapeutic”
has been expanded to cover anything that affects the well-being of the mother. This now includes
whether she is depressed at the thought of having another child or whether having a child fits in
with her career goals. That is not what we are advocating here. The only therapeutic abortions we
are sanctioning are those where the mother’s life is genuinely endangered, and it is impossible to
save both her life and the life of the baby.4

Abortion and The Handicapped Child

A commonly heard argument for abortion is that we should not allow “nature’s anomalies” to be
born. Where possible, we ought to abort children who will be born with some handicap,
particularly if it is severe.
In response, we have a number of things to say. First, society in general and family and
friends in particular must deal compassionately with any parent called upon to take up the added
burden of caring for a handicapped child. Even when that burden is accepted, it is not easy. It

3
Nigel M. de S. Cameron and Pamela F. Sims, Abortion: The Crisis in Morals and Medicine (Leicester, England:
Inter-Varsity, 1986), pp. 98-99. See also Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, p. 170, and J. Carl
Laney, “A Biblical Appraisal of the Abortion Epidemic,” Living Ethically in the 90’s, ed. J. Kerby Anderson
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990).
4
Cameron and Sims, pp. 100-102.

11
often requires enormous sacrifice. It takes emotional energy, finances, and possibly a rearranging
of one’s goals and priorities. Self-sacrifice for the good of another is not very popular today.
Those willing to do it should be applauded, encouraged, and helped as much as possible.
Second, it is easy to forget that there are at least two parties to be considered in this matter,
the parents and the handicapped child. It is important not to pit the parents’ needs against the
child’s. Put another way, the child’s right to life should not be bartered for freedom from care for
the parents. It is hard to imagine a parent asking God for a handicapped child. However, many
testify that just such a child has been an incredible blessing, even drawing the family closer
together and to the Lord.5 We should not forget Christ’s attitude toward those who were sick and
infirm (e. g., John 9:3). It was God who said to Moses: “Who makes [man] deaf or dumb? Who
gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exod 4:11).
Third, handicaps cover a wide range of disabilities. Some children are born with mild
handicaps, others with moderate, and still others with severe disabilities. To summarily condemn
them all as a group to death is cruel indeed. Moreover, while some persons are born with
disabilities, others develop them along life’s way. If one is justified in terminating the life of an
unborn child merely on the suspicion that he or she may have some disability, does it not follow
that those whom we know have some handicap should be put to death postnatally? The desire to
cure or avoid disease should not so consume us that we destroy those among us who have
disabilities. A utopian society is a tricky one. It immediately raises the question, whose utopia?
One must be careful not to ticket oneself for termination in the process.
Fourth, while methods for detecting disabilities in unborn infants are constantly improving,
there are still cases of false positives and false negatives. The former lead to the abortion of
perfectly healthy infants, while the latter raise the question as to whether those who escape
detection prenatally ought to be euthanized postnatally. If expectant parents tried to determine
whether their unborn child had some handicap and the tests failed to reveal the difficulty, why
should they be burdened with a child they did not want? If detected handicaps or defects warrant
destroying the child, then it seems to follow that parents have a right to kill the child, regardless
of when the handicap becomes known. The logic follows, but the result (sanctioning infanticide)
cannot be morally tolerated.
Someone may, however, respond that we are addressing the easy cases, cases where the child
will survive and live at least a moderately normal human existence. There are, on the other hand,
far more severe cases which we have not handled. There are children who will be so severely
handicapped that they will live a life that can only be characterized as subhuman. They may need
skilled care all their life and still live in a vegetative state. Or, in the most extreme cases, unborn
children are diagnosed as having a disease that will cause them to die at birth or shortly
thereafter. Should not abortion be available at least in these extreme cases? Why prolong death?
Why try to avoid the inevitable? Is not the anguish of the parents to be considered?
Our answer will not satisfy everyone. Yet, it is not given out of a callous disregard for the
pain of the parents and possibly even the child. Still, we must respond that even in these extreme
cases eugenic abortions are not moral. We think not for two reasons. Even where death is
inevitable, we have no right to take someone’s life. Life and death are in God’s hands, not man’s.
Moreover, how we treat those in this state will influence our attitude more generally to the
sanctity of life. A society that permits the abortion of handicapped children prenatally can easily
become a society that finds reasons to terminate the lives of others who are undesirable for some

5
Ibid., pp. 88, 101ff. See also Laney, pp. 216-217, and Fowler, pp. 170-171.

12
other reason. The taking of innocent life is forbidden by God’s word. Obeying that prohibition is
right, and it also seems a reasonable price to pay even in these cases in order to uphold the
broader goal of respect for life.

Abortion and Rape or Incest

In rape and incest we again confront extreme examples. Rape and incest are some of the most
horrible sexual crimes imaginable. They often result in great physical and psychological harm to
the victim. Add to that the fact that in incest there is the possibility for a severely handicapped
baby, because the parents are so closely related genetically. Are we to add to the already
enormous burdens rape or incest places on a victim the responsibility to bear a child from this
union and to care for him or her until maturity?
Before offering moral guidance on these matters, we must acknowledge facts that cannot
help but enter into our judgment. We have never been involved in rape or incest, and as men we
cannot fully appreciate the utterly devastating character of these crimes. Nonetheless, those facts
need not invalidate our moral evaluation of this issue. The reader must evaluate what we say on
its own merits, apart from one’s assessment of those who offer it. Having said this, we suggest
that the place to begin discussing this issue is with the arguments for both sides.
As to arguments against abortion in cases of rape and incest, an initial argument is that it is
never right to do evil to achieve good. Put another way, two wrongs do not make a right. While
rape and incest are horrible acts, so is abortion. Second, while rape and incest are acts of violence
against the mother, so is abortion. As argued in the previous chapter, abortion is not without
possible complications for the mother. Third, aborting a fetus conceived by rape or incest makes
the baby a victim of the crime as well. The mother is already a victim of this crime; abortion only
adds another. Fourth, it is never right to commit murder to alleviate suffering. Abortion is
murder, like it or not, and in this case it is committed to alleviate the pain of the mother. Fifth, to
demand that the mother bear the child is not to lack compassion. Harm, both physical and
psychological, may come to the mother who aborts in the situation, so there is concern for her.
However, to terminate the life of an unborn child certainly shows no compassion for him or her.
We have a right, so it is argued, to require the mother to give birth to the child, and if she cannot
bear to care for it, she should give it up for adoption. Sixth, it is wrong to force someone to do
something they have no duty to do. No one is obligated to lay his or her life down for another’s
life, much less for some lesser benefit. Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to do so. But that
is exactly what the baby is asked to do. We are asking the unborn child, conceived by rape or
incest, to forfeit life in order to ameliorate the mother’s pain. To refuse abortion is an example of
the no duty-non-forcing principle.6 Finally, conception in cases of rape is very rare. The reasons
are many. The emotional trauma of the act may prevent ovulation, the offender may experience
impotence, or the woman may use contraceptives or be in her infertile period of the month. It is
estimated that .06 of 1 percent of all abortions are for rape. Undoubtedly, the numbers are low
because some who become pregnant from rape decide not to abort. Still, it is safe to say that the
main reason figures are low is that most rape victims don’t get pregnant.

6
The no duty-non forcing principle says it is wrong to force someone to do something for which they have no duty.
As applied to abortion in a case of rape or incest, this means it is wrong to force the baby to forfeit its life to make a
mother happy or to relieve her pain. The baby has no such duty, so it is wrong to force it to give up its life.

13
 In turning to the case for permitting a woman to have an abortion in cases of rape or incest,
one finds few arguments. Some claim that abortion must be permissible as the woman has
already suffered enough. Rape and incest are horrible, violent acts, and we should not add to the
woman’s already heavy burdens by requiring her to carry the child. Second, in cases where the
act is particularly heinous, the child will be a constant reminder of the crime. That crime may
even result in severe psychological damage and death (suicide) to the mother. Finally, the most
important argument for allowing abortion in these cases is that there is a morally significant
difference in cases of rape and incest as opposed to other abortions. The difference is that with
rape and incest, the mother did not consent, implicitly or explicitly, to sexual intercourse.
Instead, she was forced into an act that resulted in conception of an unwanted pregnancy.
In evaluating these arguments, we think some are not as weighty as they first seem. On the
side of prohibiting abortion, the claims that we should never do evil to achieve good and that two
wrongs never make a right assume that abortion in this case is immoral. But that is just the point
in question, and to use this argument seems to beg that question. Moreover, the claim that it is
wrong to commit murder just to prevent suffering is another example of the same problem. If
murder is defined minimally as the taking of innocent life without just cause, then that assumes
rape and incest are not just causes, which is, of course, the whole point of the debate.
On the side of permitting abortion in these cases, there are similar problems. There is the
assumption that a child who is the product of rape or incest will be an unwanted child. This
argument bears some similarities to the more general unwanted child argument. The child could
be carried to term, and then adopted by someone who very much wants a baby. Furthermore,
while the child is certainly unwanted at conception, that does not mean the child will always be
unwanted. In fact, it is entirely possible that this child could be a factor in healing the wound
opened by rape or incest. With respect to the most important argument, we can agree that there is
a morally significant difference in cases of rape and incest, but that does not entitle the victim to
an abortion. The reason is that the argument assumes that if one is unjustly denied her freedom of
choice, that gives her the right to take a life. That seems clearly to be a faulty assumption.
Our position is that although we acknowledge the horror of rape and incest and have genuine
compassion for victims of such crimes, we think the weight of argument goes against permitting
abortions even in these hard cases. We hold this view for several reasons. First, we do not think
it is morally right for someone to give up his or her life without consent merely to alleviate
someone else’s suffering. That is what the fetus in these cases is asked to do.
Secondly, we think it is possible even in cases of rape or incest to prevent conception, and
believe this is the course of action that should be taken. There is a period of time between
intercourse and conception, and, if estrogen treatment is given, conception can be
prevented. Hence, it seems possible to reduce dramatically the number of rape and incest cases
where the question of abortion would even arise. In those cases where it does arise, however, we
see no morally acceptable reason for demanding the forfeiture of the baby’s life.

14
 Euthanasia

LIKE ABORTION, euthanasia is one of the critical life issues facing modern culture. In a very
famous speech in the 1980s, former governor of Colorado Richard Lamb argued that the elderly
must die, embracing euthanasia, to make way for the young, who simply cannot afford the
medical care needed by elderly people. With the population living longer and with medical costs
rising, the pressure for euthanasia as a solution over the next several decades will be relentless.
How should Christians view mercy killings, doctor-assisted suicide, and “death with dignity”?
One’s attitude toward abortion often gives a hint of the attitude toward euthanasia because both
focus on the view of human life. Whether that life is in a mother’s womb or on a deathbed at age
ninety, both are of infinite value to God; both bear His image.

Euthanasia Defined

The term euthanasia is derived from two Greek words meaning “well” or “good” death. It is
today associated with language that seeks to sanitize the reality of death. “Death with dignity”
focuses on constitutionally establishing the right of humans to die in a manner they choose.
Usually, the reference point is old age when the bodily systems are beginning to shut down.
Mercy killing refers to taking a person’s life or allowing someone to take his or her own life to
end the suffering that goes with a particular disease or a specific physical ailment or condition.
Euthanasia involves several types or methods utilized to effect the death. Voluntary or
involuntary euthanasia defines whether the patient requests or has taken an active role in
deciding upon the death. Active or passive euthanasia determines the method used to bring about
the death. Passive euthanasia would involve, for example, allowing natural means of the body to
bring death without any intervention. Not hooking a patient up to a ventilator or a heart machine
would be examples because death would most certainly follow. Active euthanasia focuses on a
loved one actively taking the person’s life with a weapon or removing the life-sustaining
equipment from the patient, bringing on death. Direct or indirect euthanasia stresses the role of
the patient who dies from a specific action. Doctor-assisted suicide, where a medical doctor gives
a patient the equipment or medicine to end life, would be an example of direct euthanasia.

A Christian view of Death and Life

A believer in Jesus Christ views death quite differently from an unbeliever. Death in Scripture is
clearly the judgment of God upon sin. God told Adam that if he ate of the tree in the garden, he
would die. When he and Eve ate, they both experienced the separation from God that resulted
from sin and brought eventual physical death (Gen. 2 and 3). Sin gains authority over humans,
therefore, and results in separation from God—death.
The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ dealt the deathblow to sin and defeated
death in the believer’s life. Because Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, the believer
need not fear death. Although that person may die physically (the soul separated from the body),
the separation is not permanent because of the promised resurrection. Hence, Paul can write in 1
Corinthians 15:54–55, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O
death, where is your sting?”
The believer in Jesus Christ should face death with tension. Paul gives us a window into this
tension when he writes, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). Death means
to be with Jesus and to have all the daily struggles, both physical and spiritual, over. Although

15
inexplicable, death is the door Christians go through to be with Christ. There is no other way,
barring Christ’s return for His church, for the believer to be with Christ. There is, therefore, the
constant pull of heaven matched by the constant pull to remain and serve the Lord on earth.
Death remains in the sovereign hand of God.
At the same time, the Bible teaches that every person, believer and unbeliever, is inherently
dignified and worthy of respect. It is always proper and ethically right to fight for life. That is
because men and women are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26–27). Human
life is sacred (Gen. 9:1–6), and no one should be demeaned or cursed (James 3:9–10). To treat a
human, who bears God’s image, as someone without dignity, to wantonly destroy life, or to
assume the position of authority over the life and death of another human is to step outside of
God’s revelation. The Bible affirms the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life
regardless of its stage or condition. In a word, this is the Judeo-Christian view of life.
What are some implications of this high view of life? First, it seems logical since life is so
valuable that it should be terminated only under highly unusual considerations. In the
Netherlands, for example, the Parliament there has empowered doctors to help individuals
commit suicide if they are suffering from terminal illnesses and even if they are struggling with
certain emotional/mental disorders. Such practices violate Scripture, cheapen life, and treat a
human as of little value and with no dignity. In short, to allow widespread euthanasia is to foster
a culture of death.
Another implication of the Judeo-Christian view of life is that personhood is defined in
biological terms. As defended in the previous chapter, a human is a person whose life begins at
conception, not at birth. Personhood is not defined according to I.Q., a sense of the future, a
capacity to relate to other humans, or any other such criteria (more about these criteria later). The
point is that God creates the life, defines its beginning as conception, and sustains the life.
Humans who believe His Word will maintain the same view and always fight for life. To end life
in a premeditated manner, or as is legitimized in doctor-assisted suicide, violates the Bible’s high
view of life.

The Quality of Life Ethic

Over the last several decades in Western civilization, especially in medicine but through the
entire culture, a new ethic is replacing the Judeo-Christian ethic—the quality of life ethic. At its
vital center, this new ethic places relative, rather than absolute, value on human beings. Let me
cite several examples:
• Joseph Fletcher argues that infanticide (killing of infants) and euthanasia are acceptable
because human beings have a moral obligation to increase well-being wherever possible. “All
rights are imperfect,” he claims, “and can be set aside if human need requires it.” Fletcher is a
utilitarian who believes that objective moral norms are irrelevant in determining right and wrong.
Only what brings the greatest good to the greatest number is right. He goes on: “Human
happiness and well-being are the highest good … and … therefore any ends or purposes which
that ideal or standard validates are just, right, good.” Suicide and mercy killing are acceptable to
Fletcher because “a morally good end can justify a relatively bad means.”1
• For Joseph Fletcher, to meet the criteria of being truly human, a person must possess
minimal intelligence, a sense of the future and the past, a capacity to relate to others, and a
balance between rationality and feelings. For example, a human with an I.Q. of 40 is
1
Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 156-157.

16
questionably a person; one with an I.Q. of 20 or below is definitely not a person. Following
Fletcher’s logic, an infant, an adult, or an elderly person with a degenerative brain disease would
not meet these criteria and thus would forfeit the right to life.
This new quality of life ethic is frightening. Rejecting any claim to ethical absolutes, this
system embraces subjective criteria to define life’s value and ends up justifying both euthanasia
and infanticide. It violates all aspects of life’s value as defined by the image of God concept and
places humans in the seat of the sovereign God. Using subjective criteria, the quality of life ethic
empowers other humans to decide who lives and who dies.

Another Alternative- The Christian Hospice

This chapter has rejected the propensity of the present culture to redefine personhood and
justify euthanasia. However, what does a Christian do when a loved one is diagnosed with a
terminal disease? What does one do if someone dear develops Alzheimer’s disease or
Huntington’s disease? What if extremely painful cancer develops, and the only outlook is months
or years of pain to be followed by death?
There is no easy answer, but the Christian hospice movement is offering a powerful
alternative for Christians today. Sometimes care is provided for dying patients within a nursing
home facility or their own home. It involves managing pain with drugs, giving loving comfort,
and providing daily service to meet all human needs, whatever the specific situation. The care is
complemented by spiritual encouragement from God’s Word, mixed with prayer and edifying
opportunities as reminders of God’s goodness and of eternal life. Death is not easy, but, as
mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Christian approaches death differently than the unbeliever.
The loving, empathetic, nail-scarred hands of Jesus are outstretched to welcome His child home
to heaven. Hospice care provides the dignified alternative to honor God’s creation (life) all the
while preparing the dying saints for the promise that awaits them. It preserves the dignity of life
that the mercy killers promise but cannot deliver.

17
 Human Sexuality

What only a few decades ago was unthinkable, is gradually became debatable and is now
becoming acceptable. The desire to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle is clearly part of a
strategy to make it acceptable. That strategy is working. In politics, business, television and other
entertainment, and the arts, the homosexual lifestyle is commonly presented as an alternate way
of life. Sexual activity between people of the same gender is legal but same-sex couples cannot
legally marry or obtain civil partnerships. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India
decriminalised homosexuality by declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
unconstitutional. Our goal is to focus on what God has said about the issue and then construct a
strategy to impact culture on this matter.

The Bible and Human Sexuality

When discussing homosexuality, evangelicals usually point to the Levitical code, to Sodom and
Gomorrah, or to Paul’s statements in the New Testament. I believe this is an error. The proper
place to begin thinking about this issue is Genesis 2. After giving clear instructions to Adam
about his stewardship of the Garden, God concludes that it is not good that Adam be alone (v.
18). To prove this to Adam, God brings all the animals before him to name (vv. 19–20).
Although this act establishes his authority over the animals, it also serves as an object lesson for
Adam. He is the only creature of God truly alone. So God creates the woman as his complement,
his helper (vv. 21–23).
Moses then offers a theological commentary on what God did with Adam and Eve (vv. 24–
25). First, God established the paradigm for marriage. The man is to leave his family with the
conscious understanding that he is establishing a new family unit. Second, that means “to cleave”
(like glue) to his wife. Third, in separating from his family of origin and making the unqualified
commitment to his wife, the two will “become one flesh.” This concept does symbolize the
sexual intercourse that physically unites the two human beings, but it also symbolizes the
merging of two personalities, male and female, into a complementary whole. Their personalities,
their idiosyncrasies, and their uniqueness do not cease. Instead, these two totally different human
beings merge into a perfect complement where both—now together—serve God in their
integrity.1
In verse 25, Moses further comments that this couple is “naked” and not “ashamed.” They
were so totally centered on each other that they did not think of self. We can properly infer that
their sexual oneness was characterized by no shame or discomfort either. Their physical love was
beautiful and fulfilling; no selfish or carnal lust was present. The wonder of romantic love was
perfectly present in this first marriage.
Theologically, what do we learn from this passage? How does this passage establish the
model for a proper understanding of human sexuality and marriage? Allow me to suggest several
lessons:

1
See Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1988), 117-129; Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” in John Piper and Wayne
Grudem, general editors, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991),
95-112.

18
 • When Jesus and Paul deal with questions of marriage or human sexuality, they always refer
back to this creation ordinance of Genesis 2:18–25 (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12; 1 Cor. 7:10–
11). What is stated in these verses transcends culture and time. They constitute God’s ideal for
sexuality and marriage.
• Marriage is to be monogamous and heterosexual—the standard, the ideal, for all marriages.
From this passage it is impossible to justify polygamy or homosexuality. “Same-sex” marriages
are not an option. With this standard established for marriage in the creation ordinance, the other
scriptural passages dealing with human sexuality are all measured against Genesis 2. Each
maintains that fornication, adultery, or homosexuality is an aberration, a radical departure from
God’s clear standard.
• Genesis 19:1–11 is the story of Sodom, which God utterly destroyed with fire. Homosexual
commentators see the sin of the men as a violation of the ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes.
But verse 5 and Lot’s response in verse 8 demonstrate unequivocally that these men were intent
on homosexual relations. Their behavior was a deliberate departure from God’s clear revelation
in Genesis 2.
• In Leviticus 18:22, 29 and 20:13, homosexual commentators often argue that we set aside
most other parts of the Levitical law; so why emphasize this one so adamantly? Although Jesus’
finished work on Calvary’s cross did render inoperative much of the Levitical law and practices
(the argument of Hebrews), issues of human sexuality transcend the law because of the creation
ordinance of God in Genesis 2. What God says in Leviticus 18 and 20 is tied clearly to His
standard established at creation. Homosexuality is ethically wrong.
• Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26–27 about the debased sexual practices cited in the verses
hangs on his use of the word natural. Homosexual commentators argue that Paul is condemning
unfaithfulness in the homosexual relationship, not homosexuality itself. However, natural and
unnatural can only be understood as departure or adherence to some standard that determines
what natural and unnatural is. That standard can only be the one established in God’s creation
ordinance in Genesis 2.
• To motivate the Corinthians out of their spiritual complacency, Paul lists in 1 Corinthians
6:9 the various categories of sinners God will keep out of His kingdom. His goal is that they will
examine themselves. Among those listed are “effeminate” and “homosexuals” Paul Feinberg
argues that these two Greek words focus on both the active and the passive partner in the
homosexual relationship. The emphasis of the passage is not on unfaithfulness to the homosexual
partner, as the homosexual commentators contend, but on the very homosexual act itself.2
• In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul also condemns homosexuality as contrary to “sound teaching.” The
issue is not unfaithfulness to a homosexual partner. The issue is engaging in something that
violates God’s clearly revealed standard. In this case, “sound teaching” is God’s revelation in His
creation ordinance, just as “liars,” “kidnappers,” “perjurers,” and others would violate His
standards revealed elsewhere (the Ten Commandments, for example).
In summary, the Bible resoundingly condemns the homosexual lifestyle as contrary to the
ethical standard God established in His creation ordinance of marriage. Without some
benchmark to settle the ethical debate on human sexuality, there will continually be heated
confrontations within the culture. God’s Word provides that benchmark; the human response of
obedience is the only acceptable option.

2
Paul and John Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1993), 199-201.

19
Homosexuality And The Church

Over the last decades, the homosexual issue has deeply impacted the church of Jesus Christ. A
brief review of some of the salient issues demonstrates how complex the issue has become. Let
me list a few developments:
• The Metropolitan Community Church movement is spreading throughout the United States.
Claiming to be evangelical, this “denomination” reads and teaches from the Bible and defends
the homosexual lifestyle as completely biblical. I summarized some of its views on the human
sexuality passages earlier in this chapter. A similar group is Evangelicals Concerned, centered in
New York City.
• Most mainline denominations are struggling over the issue of whether to ordain practicing
homosexuals into the ministry. The question is totally divisive in many of these denominations,
potentially splitting some if it is not resolved. Others are struggling with the matter of same-sex
marriages. Should denominational pastors perform such ceremonies? Denominations are deeply
divided over this question.
• The issues of homosexuality are massive, having tentacles that reach wide. But the bottom-
line issue remains what has God said. This chapter has argued that the creation ordinance of God
leaves no room for the homosexual lifestyle. It is a sin and must be faced as such.

Confronting And Discipling The Homosexual

Suggested below are several action points for dealing with the reality of homosexuality in our
culture:
• Remember that to the homosexual subculture, evangelicals are the enemy! Because the
Bible speaks so clearly on this issue, and evangelicals reflect that truth, there is no room for
compromise or discussion. Patience, love, and compassion are needed as relationships are
developed.
• Remember that homosexuality is a sin. That is the point of the earlier part of this chapter.
But, although scandalous, it is not the “worst” sin. God’s grace is completely sufficient to deal
with this bondage.
• Unconditional love is an absolute requirement in ministry to those in bondage to this sin.
Compassion, empathy, patience, and commitment for the long haul are necessary prerequisites.
The reality is that many will fall back into the lifestyle, even after conversion to Jesus Christ.
That is why organizations like Exodus International are so critical. Exodus is a worldwide
interdenominational Christian organization focused on helping Christians minister to those
affected by homosexuality. For more information, visit their web site at [Link]-
[Link]. A ready-made support group of encouragers and accountability are central to
this organization’s ministry.
• Repentance must always be the goal. There must be a complete break with the past and
with the lifestyle. No compromise or middle ground is available. Here again Exodus
International insists on a crucial requirement for ministering to the homosexual.
There is no sign that the homosexual issue will subside in the culture war raging in our times.
Somehow the church of Jesus Christ must be able with one hand to declare that this lifestyle is
morally and ethically wrong, while with the other reaching out the hand of love, acceptance, and

20
compassion. Only God, working through His Spirit to enable the church, can accomplish this
most difficult and seemingly impossible task.

21
 Pornography

Pornography has been tearing apart the very fabric of modern society, but the problem has been
made much worse with pornography’s proliferation through the Internet. Studies show that 40
million adults regularly visit Internet pornography sites.

It is already a multi-billion dollar-a-year business mostly promoted through so-called “adult

bookstores” and pornographic magazines. With the development of videos, DVDs, and the
Internet, pornography has become ubiquitous. Pornography is not just something a few men view
in the late hours in the privacy of their homes. At least 70 percent of porn is downloaded during
work hours (9 am to 5 pm). A percentage of those who do so admit to accessing pornography at
work. And pornography also affects those in church. According to Leadership Journal, 40
percent of pastors admit to visiting a pornographic website. And at one Promise Keepers
Convention, 53 percent of men admitted to visiting a porn site the week before.

The impact pornography is having on young people is alarming. It used to be that when you
would ask someone when they first saw pornography they would tell you a story about seeing a
porn magazine at a friend’s house when they were in middle school or high school. Now a child
in grade school has already seen images that were only available in an adult bookstore a few
years ago. At one time these images were inaccessible to youth; now they are merely a mouse
click away. The average age of first exposure to Internet pornography is 11 years old. And the
largest consumer of Internet pornography is the 12-17 age group.

How should we define pornography? What is the effect on individuals and society? And what is
a biblical perspective on this? In the next section, we address some of these questions.9

Definition of Pornography
How should we define pornography? Pornography has been defined as material that “is
predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Hard-
core pornography “is sexually explicit in the extreme, and devoid of any other apparent content
or purpose.”

Biblical Perspective
God created men and women in His image (Gen. 1:27) as sexual beings. But because of sin in
the world (Rom. 3:23), sex has been misused and abused (Rom. 1:24-25).

Pornography attacks the dignity of men and women created in the image of God. Pornography
also distorts God’s gift of sex which should be shared only within the bounds of marriage (1 Cor.
7:2-3). When the Bible refers to human sexual organs, it often employs euphemisms and indirect
language. Although there are some exceptions (a woman’s breasts and womb are sometimes

9
Christians Ethics in Plain Language for Reading Hour
22
mentioned), generally Scripture maintains a basic modesty towards a man’s or woman’s sexual
organs.

Moreover, Scripture specifically condemns the practices that result from pornography such as
sexual exposure (Gen. 9:21-23), adultery (Lev. 18:20), bestiality (Lev. 18:23), homosexuality
(Lev. 18:22 and 20:13), incest (Lev. 18:6-18), and prostitution (Deut. 23:17-18).

A biblical perspective of human sexuality must recognize that sexual intercourse is exclusively
reserved for marriage for the following purposes. First, it establishes the one-flesh union (Gen.
2:24-25; Matt. 19:4-6). Second, it provides for sexual intimacy within the marriage bond. The
use of the word “know” indicates a profound meaning of sexual intercourse (Gen. 4:1). Third,
sexual intercourse is for the mutual pleasure of husband and wife (Prov. 5:18-19). Fourth, sexual
intercourse is for procreation (Gen. 1:28).

The Bible also warns against the misuse of sex. Premarital and extramarital sex is condemned (1
Cor. 6:13-18; 1 Thess. 4:3). Even thoughts of sexual immorality (often fed by pornographic
material) are condemned (Matt. 5:27-28).

Moreover, Christians must realize that pornography can have significant harmful effects on the
user. These include: a comparison mentality, a performance-based sexuality, a feeling that only
forbidden things are sexually satisfying, increased guilt, decreased self concept, and obsessive
thinking.

Christians, therefore, must do two things. First, they must work to keep themselves pure by
fleeing immorality (1 Cor. 6:18) and thinking on those things which are pure (Phil. 4:8). As a
man thinks in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7). Christians must make no provision for the flesh
(Rom. 13:14). Pornography will fuel the sexual desire in abnormal ways and can eventually lead
to even more debase perversion. We, therefore, must “abstain from fleshly lusts which war
against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). Second, Christians must work to remove the sexual perversion
of pornography from society.

23
 Alcohol and Drugs

There are a lot of attitudes about drug use floating around. Some say it's harmless fun. Others try
to discourage its use. But maybe what you're hearing doesn't seem to add up with what you see.
You may know people who use. They do well in school. They start on the football or basketball
team. You see them smoked out only at parties. And it's the same in the media, where many
celebrities enthusiastically endorse pot smoking but seem to suffer few ill effects from their
habit. So you may dismiss the warnings.

Despite popular perceptions, even casual drug use can have devastating consequences. Today's
anti-drug messages highlight some of them but tend to focus only on the physical effects of use.
The person who's asked Christ to be Lord of his life should know that drug use can damage his
soul as well as his body.

we were specially made by a loving Creator who intends for our life to be dynamic and
purposeful. He made us in His image. we are an eternal, spiritual being with a miraculous mind
and body that bears His reflection. And He wants every part of you to be pure.

This is only possible when our spirit lines up with God's Spirit. When we sin, you disrupt our
companionship with God and begin to slide away from Him. This is often a subtle, slow process
— at least at first.

Many drug users find the only way to relieve their guilt is to turn their backs on God. They go
through a reasoning process something like this:

• If there is a God, I should do what He wants.

• But I want to do something He forbids.

• Therefore, I'll claim there must not be a God, or I'll conclude I can no longer serve Him
because He certainly must hate me now.

Willful, repeated sinful behavior can cement such fundamentally flawed logic — what the Bible
calls a hardening of our hearts or being given over to "a depraved mind" (Romans 1:28). It's not
that God wouldn't take an addict back. Instead, we have no desire to return. Without question, it's
an enormous risk to take.

Does Scripture's apparent silence might mean that some drug use is acceptable? Drugs were
virtually nonexistent during biblical times. Thus, substances such as LSD, marijuana, heroin,
Ecstasy, cocaine, methamphetamine and any number of others aren't mentioned in Scripture.
However, God makes it clear that He prohibits drunkenness (see Proverbs 23:20-21, 29-35; 1
Corinthians 5:11; 1 Peter 4:3).

24
The application to drugs is obvious: Substances that compromise our minds and bodies are out of
bounds. Consider the following:

1. The Bible explicitly instructs us to refrain from getting [Link] specifically instructs
us to avoid an induced buzz. For example, the apostle Paul writes, "Do not get drunk on wine,
which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). The reason Paul
gives for this instruction is that it leads to indulging passions without restraint, a.k.a. debauchery.
He contrasts drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Spirit of God. The principle behind the
passage is simply this: Stay away from stuff that will confuse your thoughts, weaken your
inhibitions and make you more vulnerable to sin. Can you think of a drug that doesn't do all
those things? Whether depressant or stimulant, psychedelic or dissociative, legal or illegal,
substances that mess with your mind get a poor rap in God's book: "In the end it bites like a
snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine
confusing things" (Proverbs 23:32-33).

2. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. God instructs us to honor Him with our body. In
1 Corinthians 6, the apostle Paul condemns sexual immorality. He says, "Do you not know that
your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You
are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1
Corinthians 6:19-20). We do not own ourselves. Ultimately, we belong to God. He lives inside of
those who trust in Him and takes a dim view toward those who destroy His habitation — even if
they do so in the name of pleasure.

Now, don't forget that God is not against pleasure. He wants us to enjoy life and have it to the
full (John 10:10). But He knows that the "pleasures of sin" (Hebrews 11:25) eventually take us
further than we want to go and cost us more than we want to pay. Plus, no matter how good the
trip, an artificial high never really gratifies. It's that way with drugs and all "enjoyable" sins:
Their emptiness takes us away from true enjoyment in God. Jeremiah compared Israel's search
for satisfaction in sin to broken cisterns, man-made reservoirs designed to store water. "My
people have committed two sins: They have forsaken Me, the spring of living water, and have
dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water" (Jeremiah 2:13).

3. We must avoid all types of wrong behaviors in order to grow. Drug use numbs our will to
pursue God and His purposes for our lives. Paul repeatedly instructed his readers to be careful
about the decisions they make. The passage immediately before his instruction not to get drunk
reads, "Be very careful, then, how you live — not as unwise but as wise, making the most of
every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what
the Lord's will is" (Ephesians 5:15-17).

4. God wants our thought life under His control. Did you know that God cares what you think
about? In fact, Paul goes so far as to describe a war waged all over the world, fought in part for
your mind:

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight
with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish

25
strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the
knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
— 2 Corinthians 10:3-5
The way we think is central to the way we live. How we think about drugs and how drugs make
us think are both vital. A drug-fogged mind can keep us from properly seeing what's right and
what's wrong in many situations.

5. The virtue of self-control is critical for a disciple of Christ. Self-control is one of the
primary virtues of the Christian life. Christians are instructed to be in control of their decision-
making processes and not enslaved to anything that erodes their ability to act in ways that are
honoring to God. A clear mind — which is impossible under the influence of drugs — is crucial
to self-control, which in turn affects our ability to grow as Christians.

6. God — not drugs — can be trusted to see us through the pain of [Link] the only
reason you're interested in drugs is that they seem to offer relief from pain. Maybe life isn't going
the way you'd hoped. Maybe you've been abused. Maybe you've been rejected. Maybe you've
been seriously disappointed by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Maybe your parents divorced, and
things are difficult. Wanting a reprieve is completely understandable. But some methods are
definitely better than others.

Ponder this question: How do drugs really help? They may alter your perception of reality for a
while, but they do nothing to change it. In fact, they only give you more problems in the end.
Addiction. Isolation. Financial burden. More hurt piled on top of what was there before.

So, what can you do? Well, the first step is to trust in God. Sure, it's easier said than done,
especially in the middle of crushing circumstances. But listen to what He says: "Can a mother
forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may
forget, yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands" (Is. 49:15-
16, NKJV). Though parents might abandon their children, God will never leave His.

A second step is to take constructive action. Find an adult you trust. Talk with him or her about
your situation. Confront what you've lost, and try to deal with the pain honestly. Try to find
constructive activities you can use to get away from it all for a while. If you're having a hard
time finding someone to talk to or just want some more information on what it means to find
release from your pain, call Focus on the Family at (719) 531-3400, ext. 2700.

7. There's nothing better in life than knowing God. For the apostle Paul, nothing —
absolutely nothing — was a higher priority or greater joy than knowing Christ. Here's how he
described it:

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I
consider everything a loss compared to the -surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my
Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish. … I want to know Christ and
the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings, becoming like Him

26
in death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
— Philippians 3:7-8,10-11
Paul understood that nothing but knowing Christ would satisfy. For him, all other things were
valueless in comparison to a deeper commitment to Jesus. Remember this: Jesus gave His life
that anyone who believes might have eternal, abundant life, both on earth and after death. His
desire is for you to embrace Him in faith. But drugs cripple your ability to do that, as well as rob
you from the greatest delight you could ever experience. They offer only a counterfeit to
abundant life in Christ.

In addition to spiritual consequences, there are physical consequences. What happens when you
ski down a steep slope and wipe out? By the time you stop you're a lot farther down the hill from
where you fell. Momentum carries you along after the initial crash. Like wiping out, unwise
decisions have a momentum of their own.

This is the slippery slope. From the top, it looks like a harmless evening of getting high with
your friends. But you can't see how steep it is. You don't know how far or how fast it'll carry
you. And what's more, you're skiing in the dark.

As someone slides down the hill of drug use, he tends to follow several stages:

1. Experimental usage: Alcohol or drugs are tried for the first time, often fueled by curiosity
and/or motivated by peer pressure.

2. Casual users: Casual users have decided they enjoy being high but limit their use. Often
they use only on specific occasions.

3. Regular users: When casual users become regular users, they can usually still function at
work and school, but they are dangerously close to becoming chemically addicted. They
may believe they can stop using but find themselves unable to do so for any significant
period of time. People around them begin to notice signs of usage.

4. Chemical addiction: In the final stage, addicts are compelled to use, not for pleasure's sake,
but simply to feel normal. Those who reach this stage often deny the seriousness of the
situation, even though friends, family and co-workers recognize the problem."Stages of
Drug Use," Flipping the World: Drugs Through a Blue Lens, National Film Board of
Canada, [Link]/E/4/films/flippingtheworld/[Link].

One of the risks of casual usage is easy addiction. Some are going to get hooked from the first
time. And no one knows ahead of time his susceptibility. The best way to prevent addiction is
never to begin.

Maybe you've heard this one: "I'm not going to get addicted. I'm going to smoke a joint here and
there, drop a little Ecstasy, kick back with some friends and have a beer." People may use all of

27
these drugs recreationally and insist they're safe. But they ignore volumes of evidence to the
contrary.

The most pervasive drug in society has been around longer than any of the others you've read
about here so far. Even one of the Old Testament patriarchs stumbled because of it (Gen. 9:20-
21). And it's the drug that, statistically speaking, you are most likely to use."Drug trends in 1999
among American teens are mixed," Monitoring the Future, University of Michigan's Institute for
Social Research, December 17, 1999. You've probably guessed it by now.

It's alcohol.

Most people put intoxicating substances in two categories: drugs and alcohol. The first they see
as deadly, the other not. Why? Well, alcohol is legal, and "drugs" are not. Second, in some ways,
alcohol is not as instantly harmful as the previously mentioned drugs. Because it's not
immediately mind-altering like marijuana, Ecstasy, meth, cocaine or heroin, it can be used
responsibly when taken in small doses. That's why it's legal. But let's not forget that alcohol
remains "a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the
body."Main entry for "drug," [Link].

Because of its status as one of the few non-medicinal and legally controlled substances, a lot of
teens think they can handle an alcoholic high. But let's not forget the effects of beer, whiskey,
coolers and wine: changed and impaired cognition, loss of concentration and coordination,
slurred speech, unconsciousness and eventually cirrhosis of the liver, sexual dysfunction and
chronic blood pressure problems." Also, alcohol is illegal for most teens. And there's good
reason for it. Let's face it: Alcohol is a drug that scrambles one's mind and judgment, and its raw
destructive power is often overlooked.

While those drugs are among the most popular, they're far from the only ones out there. Tobacco
use (smoking or chewing) often goes hand in hand with drinking. Some teens find "creative"
uses for chemicals that were never intended to be ingested; others abuse prescription painkillers
or drugs for psychological disorders, such as Ritalin. And some people look for "better" highs
but instead slide into the vice-like grip of addiction to hard drugs such as cocaine, heroine or
crack. Whatever the drug, the principle is clear: Specific effects may vary, but the end of all drug
use is an altered state of mind; compromised physical, mental and spiritual health; and damaged
relationships.

The 20 Questions
How can you know if you or somebody you know is addicted? If someone answers "Yes" to at
least five of the questions below, that person is more than likely an addict.

1. Do you spend a great deal of time talking or thinking about getting high?
2. Do you use alone or when no one else is using?

28
 3. Have you ever had a blackout or memory loss during or after use?
4. Do you hoard or protect an extra supply to keep from running out?
5. Do you need more and more of a substance to get high?
6. Do you use more than originally planned?
7. Do you use to escape from your problems?
8. Do you do anything to get a large amount of substance into your body quickly?
9. Is your use worrying or upsetting your family?
10. Do you lose time at school or work due to use?
11. Do you use first thing in the morning?
12. Do you avoid people/places that do not condone your usage?
13. Do you spend more money on substances than you can afford?
14. Do you use one substance to offset the effects of another?
15. Do you lie about how much you're using?
16. Do you do things under the influence that you wouldn't do while sober?
17. Do you think you need to be high to have a good time?
18. Have you tried to control your use, but failed?
19. Are you ashamed of your use?
20. Have you watched your spiritual life decline or disintegrate because of use?

If you or someone you know is using, take the time to think about the questions above and
answer them honestly.

29
 Influence of social media

Hundreds of millions of people are running toward social networking sites like Facebook and
Twitter to participate in the relational components of the Internet. Are these networks the next
big mission field or an enormous waste of time? Should a Christian participate in social
networking? The answer to these questions should be determined by whether we can honestly
ask God to bless and use our actions for His own good purposes. “So whether you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). If we are willing to let
God use our participation for His glory, we have freedom to participate.

Christians who choose to participate in social networking should be aware of the negative
aspects of social networking. It should be remembered that not everyone on the Internet has pure
motives, and we should use safety precautions, utilize the privacy settings, and be selective as to
who is accepted as a “friend” or “fan.” Parents should regularly interact with their children and
be active participants in their child's use of social networking sites. In addition, Christians should
be aware of the danger of the narcissism (excessive self-love and preoccupation with self)
inherent in self-oriented sites. Studies have shown that overuse or wrong motives in social media
participation can breed narcissism. When we rely on social media sites primarily to promote
ourselves or draw attention to ourselves, it is time to take a step back. It’s wise to utilize
accountability, encouraging spouse, family members, and Christian brothers and sisters to view
our social networking activity and hold us accountable. Proverbs 27:17 says, "Iron sharpens iron;
so a man sharpens his friend's countenance."

It’s also important to understand the impact our status, photo, comments, or blog posts may have
in the future. It should be remembered that social networking sites involve publishing to the
entire Internet, including family members, current and future employers, college admissions
personnel, etc. The ramifications of any statements, both now and in the future, should be
considered. It should be assumed that everything written is permanent and viewable by everyone.
Furthermore, while maintaining relationships is important and healthy, addiction is not. Limiting
the amount of time we devote to these social networking sites is both healthy and wise.

On the other hand, there are definitely positive aspects of social networking. For the Christian,
social media sites can be an enormously productive mission field. Reconnecting with old friends
and increasing our sphere of influence can lead to evangelistic opportunities unavailable
elsewhere. Social media allows us to reenter the daily lives of people we may have lost contact
with and open up new avenues for sharing Christ. As such, we can influence the views of others
by what we post, bringing encouragement and spiritual guidance to others and using friends lists
or Facebook status updates to pray regularly for friends and their needs. "Let us consider how we
may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as
some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the
Day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24-25).

30
Finally, social networking sites can engage spiritual seekers on the Internet, meeting those
seekers where they are. Just like face-to-face evangelism, we can establish credibility and
authenticity in the seeker’s natural and comfortable environment, and then build on that
foundation and share the love of Christ with new online friends.

That said, here are a few ways social media endangers a Christian's life.

Dangers of Social Media

1) It allows room for secret sin

Here's the most dangerous effect of all: social media is a perfect breeding ground for secret sin.
When used with a motive to commit sin and hide it, social media becomes a bane, not a balm.

When people use social media with an intention to do wrong, social media can be such a bad
thing. And because it's easy to be anonymous or carry a different identity on the internet, the
temptation to hide sinful activity becomes greater.

Ephesians 5:13 tells us to be transparent with our dealings.

"But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is
light."

2) Handled the wrong way, it will steal precious time

As mentioned above, the average user spends about two hours on social media. Those two hours
could be spent on something more productive: exercise, spending time with family, studying,
working, catching some well-needed sleep, praying, Bible reading, eating, or even finding an
extra source of income.

The devil's job is to "steal, kill, and destroy." One of the ways he does that is by luring people
into wasting their time on social media hounding after another person's life.

3) It pollutes the mind

Lastly, posts on social media can pollute the mind. With all the kinds of things being posted,
shared, broadcasted and spread through these avenues, the mind can only take so much.

Today there's so much filth spreading on social media. Christians, especially men, need the
courage to close the tabs on the browser and exit the page if the content is disturbing, not to
mention stimulating towards sin.

Philippians 4:8 tells us what we should dwell on:

31
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just,
whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there
is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."

Therefore, the following biblical principles can be helpful to guide our social media use:

Guidelines for social media usage

1. Communicate clearly. Ask questions, listen, and explain yourself clearly. When you are
communicating information, be careful to define your terms. Make sure your audience
understands what you’re trying to say by the words you are using. If debates get heated, avoid ad
hominem attacks. Do not resort to calling people, especially brethren, derogatory names.

2. When it’s your turn to receive information, don’t neglect to ask questions in order to
understand the writer. Don’t be presumptuous. Take time to assess the other person’s
understanding of the subject matter, terminology etc… Many communication problems arise
when we assume our listeners understand “where we are coming from.” More often than not they
do not. “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man does
not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19).

3. Be careful. Approach controversial subjects with caution. How much trouble is stirred by a
flippant attitude towards important subjects? How often do we say things or others say things to
us that we would never communicate face to face? Avoid being flippant while posting on
important subject matters. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his
opinion” (Proverbs 18:2).

4. Don’t post anything controversial if you are in a hurry. As the old military saying goes,
“Undo haste makes waste.”

5. Pray before you post anything controversial. This is all the more important if you consider
your posting as a ministry to others. “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the
flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

6. Define your terms. This bears repeating. The majority of online disagreements involve both
sides talking past each other as neither attempts to understand what the other actually means.

7. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t attack or embarrass a brother or sister if you can deal
with your differences privately. More often than not, our comments can be better handled in a
private setting. Don’t let pride motivate you to uncover a brother or sister unnecessarily in public
discourse. “Hatred stirs up strife: but love covers all sins” (Proverbs 10:12).

8. Go the extra mile to communicate humbly and graciously. Before hitting send, reread your
post from the other person’s perspective to see if genuine humility comes across. It is important

32
we avoid coming across like an arrogant know it all. Remember, “God resists the proud but gives
grace unto the humble” (I Peter 5:5).

9. Give the benefit of the doubt to the writer rather than to assume the worst in intentions. Just
as we have all had others misinterpret our tone and intention, we have to be careful not to do the
same to others. Assume the best and give grace, until proven otherwise. “Love suffers long and
is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely,
does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in
the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians
13:4-7).

10. If you are getting angry and irritated, STOP. Save your work. Revisit it later. You may
find you don’t even want or need to respond. Perhaps someone else has communicated better or
the writer clarified their comments. You may find they weren’t saying what you thought they
were saying to begin with. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians. 4:6).

11. Don’t drown your seed. Allow time for the seed-planting process to work. Once you’ve
made a strong point, let it settle. If it is initially resisted, do not bow up and try to force feed the
seed or drown it with a water hose. Let the truth settle and relax. Folks may resist outwardly
while inwardly chew on and wrestle with what you have already stated. Give time for the Holy
Spirit to affirm the truth of God’s Word. “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase” (1
Corinthians 3:6, 7).

12. Weigh criticisms before you respond. There is often at least some merit in many criticisms.
If God can rebuke a wayward prophet by a donkey, he can even use our enemies to reveal our
sins and character flaws. Take time to receive and consider them before the Lord. It is important
to resist a knee-jerk defensive response. It only serves to pour more fuel on the fire. “He that
refuses instruction despises his own soul: but he that hears reproof gains understanding.”
(Proverbs 15:32)

13. Private message personal communications or corrections. If or when a clash begins, your
first instinct should be to private message rather than to engage in public debate. Check your
pride at the door and take personal issues with brethren into a private arena. God’s Word is clear,
“Go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your
brother.” (Matthew 18:15)

14. In a discussion turned argument stop and ask yourself if you are just trying to win the
argument or are you trying to win the person. Check your heart early and often in the discussion.
Philippians 2:3 remind us, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in
lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

33
If we do the above, social media can be a great tool for exalting Christ, communicating truth,
touching hearts, and changing minds. If we don’t, we risk dishonoring our Lord, tainting our
witness, sowing seeds of discord, and giving place to the devil.

Just as much as God hates the hands that shed innocent blood, he also hates those who sow
discord among the brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19). We must not allow our common adversary to
separate, divide, and conquer the brethren. When it comes to social media, as with all
relationships, Augustine stated a good proposition, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials,
liberty; in all things, charity.” This is a good rule of thumb to remember as we communicate on
social media.

34
 The Ethics of Work and Caste/Race

Some love to do it. Some people hate to do it. Some go to great lengths to avoid doing it. Some
do it too much. While there are many different attitudes toward work, one thing remains
constant: Work must be done. Since the Garden of Eden everyone has worked or depended on
someone else’s work for their survival. Furthermore, work sets a person’s lifestyle—where to
live, when to sleep and eat, time with family, and even dress. If a person is not content with
work, the rest of life is in turmoil. What should be the Christian’s attitude toward work? Is it a
blessing or a curse? Is work a means to justify the ends of leisure and entertainment? This
chapter focuses on developing a Christian work ethic and discussing the proper perspective on
work relationships.

A Biblical View of Work

Work is ordained by God. It was His creative invention from the beginning. While we do not
usually think of God as working, and while we do not know all the details, the Bible declares that
God worked (Gen. 1–2). By working, we resemble God. Like God, humans have the ability to
work, make plans, implement them, and be creative. In addition, Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 proclaim
that God gave humans the task of ruling over and taking care of His creation.
Apparently Adam and Eve’s pre-Fall work had both a physical and spiritual dimension. With
respect to the Garden of Eden, God told them “to cultivate it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15). The
Hebrew word translated “keep” is used in 3:24, referring to the angel who was “to guard the way
to the tree of life.” Adam and Eve had that same responsibility, an immense spiritual
stewardship, before their rebellion against God. Therefore, work has both a physical and a
spiritual dimension.
Work is not only toilsome, due to sin, but it is for a lifetime. Genesis 3:19 says, “By the
sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground” (emphasis added).
Apparently God intends that humans are to work as long as they live. Meaningful activity plays a
critical role in what we are as human beings. Retirement does not end work; rather it must
include work—for a person’s overall well-being. This proposition speaks volumes about the
manner in which Western civilization views the retirement years. The magical age of sixty-five
should not end meaningful, purposeful work.
When interpreting Genesis 3:17–19, some argue that work is a curse resulting from the Fall.
While God’s curse in these verses has an enormous effect on work, work itself is not a
punishment. God’s point is that pain and toil are involved when humans seek productive results.
In addition, counteracting forces tend to restrict those results. Until death, humans are always
faced with painful, laborious toil. God did not create work as drudgery; that is the result of sin.
Therefore, we speak today of “getting back to the grind” or to the “salt mine.” Work today is
tedious, difficult, and often frustrating.
Despite the “painful toil,” work has three basic purposes: to meet human needs, to provide
for a quality of life, and to serve (and worship) God. First, work provides money (or resources)
to supply the necessities of life. Jesus said that it is proper to pray for our “daily bread” (Matt.
6:11), and a way that prayer is answered is through work. Second, work enhances the quality of
life. Work enhances the satisfaction of life and is the strongest predictor of life span, even above
general happiness and other physical factors.

35
 Furthermore, psychological and mental health are related to work. A person receives a sense
of personal dignity and worth from work. Most people, when introducing themselves, share their
name and occupation. People who are without work often suffers from depression, poor self-
image, and mental illnesses. God gave work as a gift of fulfillment in life. The worker is to enjoy
it for more than simply its economic benefits. Ecclesiastes 2:24–25 (NIV) argues that a human
being “can do nothing better than … find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the
hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment?”
The final purpose of work is to serve God. Colossians 3:22–4:1 is the major biblical passage
on the proper ethical attitude for work. Here Paul writes to slaves and masters. However,
remember that the vast majority of workers in the Roman Empire were slaves, working usually
for life with limited rights. In many ways, the slave’s relationship to his master is similar to the
employee/employer relationship of today.
In this passage, the apostle Paul details three principles on the ethic of work. First is the
principle of obedience, consistency, and sincerity (Col. 3:22). The Christian is to approach work
as a matter of obedience to God; it is a stewardship from Him that demands a commitment of
obedience and a consistency even when the boss is not looking. Christian workers likewise
approach the job sincerely, in a conscientious manner. The second principle is the lordship of
Jesus Christ; Christian workers serve “the Lord Christ” (Col. 3:23–24). One could easily argue
that our real boss is Jesus Christ. We work for Him, and we are to see our work as service to
Him, not simply to our employer. Finally, verse 24 states that the reason Christians maintain
such a high work ethic is because we know God will reward us. In other words, there is eternal
significance to work. Part of God’s reward system involves reward for our work. What would
happen to the quality of products and to productivity if all workers viewed work according to the
standards of Colossians 3?
From this chapter so far, it would seem that people should be excited about the idea of going
to work. Yet the opposite is true. Strikes, low productivity, union demands, absenteeism, and
high turnover rates are symptoms of dissatisfied workers. Due to sin, the meaning of work has
become distorted and twisted. The goal of work today is to enjoy the end product and work only
because it is a means to that end—leisure. Even Christians fall into this mind-set. Leisure is not
the end. Work, as this chapter has shown, is the end in itself. It is a stewardship from God, and
how we approach it has eternal implications.

Implications of a Christian Work Ethic

From the argument presented in this chapter, it is possible to deduce several implications for a
Christian work ethic:
1. Everyone should work. Since God ordained work, humans will only find fulfillment in
working. It is the key to finding purpose in life.
2. Excellence is the worker’s standard. Ephesians 6:6–7 exhorts the Christian to “render
service, as to the Lord, and not to men,” not to be men-pleasers but God-pleasers. God’s standard
of excellence needs to be the human standard.
3. Respect and obedience are to characterize workers. Both Colossians and Ephesians
challenge the slave (employee) to show respect to the master (employer). The master (employer)
is likewise to show respect and treat kindly the slave (employee). Love, mutual respect, and
justice must characterize the employer/employee relationship.

36
 4. All professions and all kinds of work, assuming they are legal and biblically ethical, are
honorable before the Lord. There simply is no dichotomy between sacred and secular work. All
work brings glory to God and fulfillment to the human if it is done to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31).
5. Work provides an opportunity for a witness. As the disciple of Christ follows a Christian
work ethic, he or she manifests a powerful message, both verbal and nonverbal, of a supernatural
approach to work. The world today needs this powerful witness.
6. Work is actually a form of worship. Such an attitude cultivates honesty, integrity, and
excellence.
In conclusion, the gospel of Jesus Christ brings total transformation to the human being. It
brings personal responsibility, dignity, and purpose—core values for a productive, God-centered
work ethic. The Christian’s daily job is a daily offering to God. This is a transformational,
supernatural, eternally significant perspective on the mundane chore called work.

The Ethics of Caste/Race

Article 17 of Indian Constitution abolished untouchablity. Although dalits are far from economic
parity with others, high positions in government, the military, business, and education are
attainable for them.
Nevertheless, almost everyone agrees that something still remains wrong, and the dream for
an integrated society where people would be judged by character rather than color or caste has
not been fully realized. Racism/Casteism in all its ugliness, remains a part of Indian society.
What does God’s Word say about race? How should we view people of a different color? What
is the biblical solution to the ongoing remnants of casteism/racism in India?

There are several biblical passages critical to forming Christ-mindedness on the subject:

1 Corinthians 1:18—The apostle Paul establishes that from God’s viewpoint there are only
two groups of human beings: those who are with Christ and those who are without Christ—in
other words, those who have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior and those who have not. The Bible
does not allow for racial differences as a basis for discrimination or ranking of humans. Jesus’
death on Calvary’s cross was for all of humanity—red, black, brown, yellow, and white.
Genesis 9:20–27—Historically, this passage has been used to justify the enslavement of the
black race that occurred in the United States after 1619. Since some of Ham’s descendants
populated Africa, Noah’s curse (some conclude) must therefore apply to all those who are from
Africa. Many in the southern part of the United States prior to the Civil War used this argument
to justify racial slavery. Unfortunately this perception about Noah’s curse remains today.
The behavior of Noah after the Flood provided the occasion for Ham’s sin. There is a
remarkable contrast between Noah’s conduct before the Flood and after. Noah, who walked in
righteousness with God, planted a vineyard, became drunk, and lay naked in his tent.
Unfortunately, since the Fall, drunkenness or nakedness can lead to personal slavery or
decadence!
Noah’s actions induce Ham’s sin. Verse 22 states that Ham “saw the nakedness of his father,
and told his two brothers.” Despite many interpretations, there is no clear evidence that Ham did
anything other than see his father’s nakedness. As Allen Ross makes clear, “Nakedness in the
Old Testament was from the beginning a thing of shame for fallen humankind. For Adam and
Eve as sinners, the state of nakedness was both undignified and vulnerable.… To be exposed

37
meant to be unprotected; to see someone uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage
for potential exploitation.” By stressing that Ham entered and saw Noah’s nakedness, Genesis
depicts Ham’s looking as a moral flaw, a first step in the abandonment of a moral code.
But Noah’s curse in verses 25–27 was on Ham’s youngest son, Canaan, that Canaan would
be a “servant of servants” (i.e., slavery). Noah’s curse anticipated in Canaan the evil traits that
marked his father Ham and so judged him. The text prepares the reader by twice mentioning that
Ham was Canaan’s father, signifying more than lineage. To the Hebrew mind, the Canaanites
were the most natural embodiment of Ham. “Everything the Canaanites did in their pagan
existence was symbolized by the attitude of Ham. From the moment the patriarchs entered the
land, these tribes were their corrupting influence.” The constant references to “nakedness” and
“uncovering” in Leviticus 18 designate a people enslaved sexually, reminding Israel of the sin of
Ham. These descendants of Ham were not cursed because of what Ham did; they were cursed
because they acted as their ancestor did.
In conclusion, it is simply impossible to see any justification for slavery or any type of
inferiority from the curse on Canaan. It is a gross distortion of God’s Word to do so.
Acts 10:34–35—The point of this extraordinary passage is that the salvation God offers is to
all humans everywhere, regardless of racial background or characteristics. Peter learns that “…
God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is
right” (NIV). Racial hatred or discrimination is impossible when one sees people the way God
does.
James 2:1–9—The story is told of Mahatma Gandhi’s search for truth and harmony for his
people of India. Raised a Hindu, Gandhi did not believe that Hinduism offered the solution to the
horrendous discrimination and rigid caste system of India. As he studied law in South Africa, he
believed that Christianity might have the answer. Hoping to find in Christianity what Hinduism
lacked, he attended a church in South Africa. Because the South African church embraced the
system of racial segregation called apartheid, the usher offered him a seat on the floor. Gandhi
decided that he might as well remain a Hindu, for Christianity has its own caste system as well.
What a tragedy!
James 2 will have none of this. James decries the typical situation of the early church where
the wealthy were given a place of privilege and honor in worship, while the poor were only
permitted to sit on the floor. Such discriminatory practices violate God’s royal law: “Love your
neighbor as yourself.” To show favoritism is sin; it desecrates God’s standard of love.
The church of Jesus Christ should therefore model the supernatural impartiality that refuses
to discriminate. The church should model reconciliation of all races and ethnic groups. It should
cut the radical path for all of society, for it alone sees people the way God sees them: Whatever
race or ethnic background, all need Jesus Christ, and all bear His image. The church has the
radical solution to society’s struggle with racial and ethnic differences. It is a supernatural
solution—disciples of Jesus Christ who have experienced His salvation and who love one
another with the supernatural love of their Savior. All the world needs to see this radical solution
lived out.

38
 War

War and capital punishment are perhaps the most excruciating ethical challenges for the
Christian. Life is of infinite value to God and must always be respected and valued. Yet many
Christians argue that it is proper and just to engage in war and kill other human beings created in
God’s image. Furthermore, Christians are involved in making and then deploying weapons of
mass destruction. Is this justifiable in terms of God’s Word? Finally, many Christians argue
strongly for the right of the state to take the life of another human being who commits
premeditated murder and other especially heinous crimes. How do we approach these difficult
questions biblically?

Definition

The difference between kill and murder is critical in a discussion about war. Many Christians do
not see a difference between these two terms, but the Bible does. The King James Version
renders Exodus 20:13 as “Thou shalt not kill,” while the New International Version renders the
same verse, “You shall not murder.” The Hebrew term in this case, rasah, does mean to kill, but
it is never used in relation to animals and is always associated with murder. Furthermore, it is
never used of killing an enemy in battle.1 Therefore, not all life-taking is murder.
Two examples exist in the Old Testament. First is Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” God gave this principle
to Noah before the Mosaic Law, and it was restated in Numbers 35 as part of the Mosaic Code.
As Charles Ryrie states, “One can conclude that when the theocracy [of Israel] took the life of a
murderer (i.e., one who violated the sixth commandment) the state (and particularly those who
actually performed the execution) was not guilty of murder.”2 The second example is the
conquest of Canaan. In Deuteronomy 20:10–18, God revealed His rules for war. It is clear from
these regulations that Israel was not guilty of murder because they were the instruments of God’s
holy judgment.
Within the evangelical community there are three major positions on the problem of war.
Each is defended biblically and held by committed Christians.

The Just war Tradition

Pacifism and activism are the two extremes on the war issue. Pacifism says it is not right to
participate in war; activism says it is right and necessary. Through the history of the church, a
mediating view has developed called the just war tradition. This tradition sees some wars as
unjust and some as just. The challenge lies in discerning which wars are just.
Since the time of the fifth-century theologian Augustine, the majority of Christians have
accepted the proposition that a set of criteria exists whereby a war and its methods are deemed
just. What follows is a summary of the most widely accepted criteria for the just war tradition:

1
Peter Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 58.
2
Charles Ryrie, You Mean the Bible Teaches That … (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 30.

39
 1. A just cause—A just cause for the use of force exists whenever it is necessary either to
repel an unjust attack, to retake something wrongly taken, or to punish evil. An example of this
criterion is Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Ethically speaking, just war theorists
argue, Saddam’s action was a flagrant case of aggression, and therefore it was justifiable for the
world community to repel his unjust aggression.
2. Right authority—This criterion focuses on established, legitimate, and properly constituted
authority using force for a “just cause.” In the United States this “right authority” consists in the
powers granted to the President of the United States, by the War Powers Act or by a
congressional declaration of war. In international affairs today, “right authority” might involve
action by the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force. The point of this criterion
focuses on legitimate authority, not private individuals who wage war.
3. Right intention—This criterion stresses the end goal for the use of force. The aim must be,
for example, to turn back or undo aggression and then to deter such aggression in the future. The
end for the use of force must be peace, not aggression or continued war. Again, the Gulf War of
1991 offers an example of this just war criterion. The world community had no aggressive aims
against the territory or people of Iraq. “Right intention” in this conflict meant rolling back
Saddam’s aggression, establishing the peace of the Middle East, and assuring that safeguards
would protect that peace in the future.
4. Proportionate means—As a criterion, this point centers on just means in the use of force;
it must be appropriate to the goal. For example, allowing aggression to stand, this view argues, is
condoning an evil in itself and opening the door to yet further evil. Therefore, military force,
whether land, air, or sea forces are involved, must be proportionate to the goal. Using nuclear
weapons, for example, would be disproportionate in rolling back aggression of an
underdeveloped nation with no air force or navy. Using chemical and biological weapons is
another example of disproportionate means.
5. Last resort—This criterion involves the legitimate government using all diplomatic and
foreign policy resources, including economic sanctions, to force the aggressive nation to pull
back. If the aggressor responds with intransigence and continued belligerence, the legitimate
government has no choice but use of military force. Again, the Iraq crisis of 1990–1991 offers a
classic example of this criterion: The allies used economic sanctions, diplomatic activity, and
personal diplomacy to change Saddam Hussein’s aggressive actions against Kuwait. He refused.
Therefore, just war advocates argue, the world community was just in rolling back his aggressive
actions.
6. Reasonable chance of success—A war cannot be just unless there is some prospect of
success. Otherwise lives will be needlessly taken in pursuit of a hopeless cause.
7. Noncombatant immunity—This is the most difficult criterion for the just war position. The
military force must not directly use noncombatants in war or intentionally target them. Of course
this means going to all ends not to intentionally and indiscriminately attack civilians or bomb
civilian neighborhoods.
With the advent of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear or chemical or biological,
one sees how difficult this criterion becomes for modern warfare. Noncombatant immunity does
not exist. Because entire populations are decimated, neither does proportionate means. This is
why many Christians argue that nuclear warfare does not meet this just war criterion and is
therefore immoral and a sin.10

10
Ibid., 220-228.

40
 In summary, the just war position argues that war must be fought only for a just cause and
not to pursue aggrandizement, glory, or vengeance. War must be declared by a legitimate
authority and have a reasonable chance of success. The resulting good must outweigh the evil of
warfare and of allowing the wrongdoing that provokes the war to continue. War must be a last
resort after less violent approaches have failed. Civilian populations must not be deliberately
attacked, every effort must be made to minimize casualties among them, and no unnecessary
force may be wielded against either troops or civilians.

Those who support this tradition give the following biblical passages as support:
1. Genesis 9:6—Here we find part of the Noahic covenant where God delineates the
responsibility of humans to be instruments of His justice. With the killing of humans comes the
responsibility of holding the murderer accountable. This, by inference, is what nations must do
as well—hold aggressors and perpetrators of international violence accountable, even if it means
using military force.
2. Matthew 22:21; 1 Timothy 2:1–2; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13—In these passages, Christians
are called upon to practice civil obedience to properly constituted authority. As stated earlier in
this chapter, this is not blind obedience, for when human law conflicts with God’s law, the
Christian obeys God.
3. Romans 13:4—In this classic passage, God delegates to the state the responsibility to use
the sword as an instrument of justice and to punish evil. By extension, this tradition holds that
nations must use military force to promote justice and punish evil.
4. John 18:11; Luke 22:36—In these passages Jesus deals with the use of the sword as an
instrument of self-defense. In the first He rebukes Peter for his misuse of the sword; He does not
condemn the use of the sword in self-defense. In the Luke passage, Jesus seems to be allowing
for a legitimate use of the sword for self-defense when, in light of His rejection, He instructs His
disciples: “let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.” Again, by inference, nations
acting in self-defense are justified in using military force.
There is enormous tension in thinking about the just war tradition. Yet because we live in a
sin-cursed world, it is probably the wisest choice among the three major options. But it should
never soothe or bring comfort! Thinking about this tradition and then its implementation should
always vex and trouble. If a nation fights what it has determined to be a just war, it must never
do so with arrogance and bombastic pride; instead, it must fight with tears and with agonizing
tension. War should never be easy. It remains one of the most perplexing ethical issues for the
Christian.

41
 Politics

SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE? Should they run for political office? Is it proper for
Christians to engage in civil disobedience? What exactly is the ethical obligation the believer
owes to the state? Does the Bible speak to any of these questions? This chapter will argue that
Scripture gives clear guidelines for all of these questions, giving the Christian a framework for
making an impact in the political arena for righteousness and the kingdom of God.

Christian’s Obligation Towards The State

The New Testament teaches clearly that the Christian does have an obligation toward the
state. This is the central point of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 12:13–17, where, when questioned
about paying taxes to Rome, He answers that we “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
and to God the things that are God’s.” We owe obligation obviously to God and His kingdom but
also to the state because He created it, and it serves His purpose.1 This passage makes clear that
the obligation to the state stems from being a member of the state.
The apostle Paul expands on Jesus’ argument in Romans 13:1–7 when he argues that the
Christian is to submit to government because God established it. No ruler, president, prime
minister, or tyrant has power that did not first come from God (Dan. 4:17–25). In verses 3 and 4
of Romans 13, Paul also argues that the state is to administer justice and thwart evil. This is the
principal reason that God created government in the first place (Gen. 9:5–7). Paul seems to imply
that this function of the state is actually conducive to the spread of the gospel.
The final reason for the Christian’s obligation toward government is found in 1 Timothy
2:1–7. Here the believer is instructed to pray for those in authority in the state, in order that “we
may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity”(v. 2). As C. E. B. Cranfield argues
from verses 3–7, “It is implied that God wills the state as a means to promoting peace and quiet
among men, and that God desires such peace and quiet because they are in some way conducive
to men’s salvation.”2

The Christian’s Responsibility to the State

That Christians have a responsibility toward the state is clear, but what exactly is the
content of that obligation?3 First, the believer owes the state respect. Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter
2:17 both admonish the Christian to honor and respect government officials as ministers of God
who have been ordained by Him and are accountable to Him for their solemn trust of promoting
justice and thwarting evil. Respect involves treating with full seriousness even individuals who
have no respect for the office or their high calling to that office. That dimension, therefore,
necessitates administering rebuke and calling to account those rulers who abuse their office or
treat the office itself with contempt.

1
Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 109-121.
2
C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Christian’s Political Responsibility According to the New Testament,” Scottish
Journal of Theology 15 (1962), 179.
3
Ibid., 176-192.

42
 Second, the believer owes the state, its agents, and its duly enacted laws obedience (Titus
3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–17; Rom. 13:1–7). Jesus paid the temple tax, and Paul apologized for speaking
disrespectfully to a ruler. Further, Jesus’ birth occurred in Bethlehem because Joseph was
obedient to an oppressive government issuing a tax-assessing edict. Yet the New Testament
mandate is neither slavish nor absolute; we see Peter and John defying the Sanhedrin’s order to
stop preaching. The issue apparently to them was clear: We obey the state until it is a sin to do
so. Here civil disobedience was not merely permitted by God’s Spirit; it was demanded (Acts
4:19ff.; 5:29). If the government commands something that God forbids or forbids something
that God commands, we must disobey. That disobedience cannot involve violence or vandalism,
actions that contradict prudence and civil order.
Thus, disobedience should never be taken lightly or with undue haste. Christians do have
a higher law than that of human government. But God gives human governments in the main His
seal of approval, and disobedience to them should be considered with great caution. Lynn
Buzzard offers seven questions the believer should ask when facing the possibility of
disobedience to the state:
1. How directly and immediately does the opposed government policy contradict an
unequivocal biblical teaching?
2. What is the counsel of the Christian community about this policy? Where do godly leaders
rank it among threats to the faith that must be addressed? What do they say about what the
faithful person’s response ought to be? To what extent have alternative legal protests been
exhausted?
3. What harms to society and order are likely to result from the considered act of civil
disobedience, and how do these harms compare with the desired benefits?
4. Will the form of civil disobedience evidence moral consistency and further proper respect
for principled law and a moral society?
5. To what extent will the “witness” be heard and understood by the public and by
government authorities?
6. To what extent are the acts central to maintaining my integrity as a person? To what extent
may they reflect personal frustration and anger rather than a principled response?
7. To what extent does the idea for the act of civil disobedience issue from thought sources
alien to a biblical worldview? Is it based upon biblical principles about the uses of power and
coercion, the witness of the cross, and the sovereignty of God, or is it based upon purely
naturalistic, humanistic principles?5
Third, the believer must pay taxes (Mark 12:13–17; Matt. 22:15–22; Luke 20:20–26;
Rom. 13:6–7). Jesus makes the payment of taxes the fundamental mark of obligation to the state,
regardless of the state’s morality or ethical bankruptcy. This is clear because Jesus and Paul were
both writing of tax payment to the Roman Empire, a corrupt, evil, and ethically repulsive state.
Fourth, the believer must pray for those in authority (1 Tim. 2:1ff.). Such praying is an
essential part of the debt owed, whether the official is pagan or Christian, religiously indifferent
or antireligious, just or unjust. I am often frustrated by Christians who relentlessly criticize
governmental officials but rarely, if ever, pray for those officials. God can use praying to effect
righteousness in the state’s laws or to bring an unbelieving government official to Jesus Christ.
Constructive criticism and calling the state to accountability need to be balanced with fervent,
persevering prayer.

5
Lynn Buzzard, “Civil Disobedience,” Eternity (January 1987), 19-25.

43
Inferences For a Christian Living in a Democracy

These, then, are the four ethical obligations the Christian owes to the state, but out of
these obligations grow certain other inferences that are especially acute for the Christian who
lives in a democracy. First, the Christian should vote. In normal circumstances, according to
Cranfield, failure to vote “is to abandon one’s share of responsibility for the maintenance of the
state as a just state and therefore a dereliction of one’s duty as a Christian.”6 Second, the
Christian should keep as fully and reliably informed as possible concerning political, social, and
economic issues. This necessitates diligent reading of newspapers and news magazines, careful
watching of television news broadcasts, and reasoned, balanced discussion of such issues with
friends and colleagues. Third is criticism of the government, its policies, and its agents in light of
God’s revelation. The Bible becomes the grid through which the Christian evaluates the state’s
actions and policies; the believer is willing to call the state to righteousness in light of God’s
Word. Finally, the Christian should work for just and righteous laws and oppose those policies
and decisions that are unjust and unrighteous. In a democracy Christians would become involved
in activities such as working for candidates who support justice and righteousness and
supporting, through calling and writing letters, legislation that reflects genuine biblical
righteousness.

Christian Involvement in Government and Politics

Increasing involvement in politics and government has grave dangers for the Christian.
To provide the maximum impact for righteousness in government, a proper and balanced
perspective is needed. This necessitates ridding ourselves of what Chuck Colson calls a “starry-
eyed view of political power.”7 Some Christians think that by marshaling a Christian voting bloc,
Christ’s kingdom on earth can be established. The external and limited good that political power
can achieve should not be confused with the internal and infinite good that God’s grace
produces. Further, there is danger in what Colson calls the “political illusion,” the notion that all
human problems can be solved by political institutions. This belief is idolatrous because the
Bible declares that the root problem of society is spiritual. What the Christian seeks through
government is justice, not power. Our goal is, therefore, to move the culture toward the
righteousness of God’s revelation. The job of total spiritual transformation is the role of Christ,
through the church, not the state.
How then does the Christian decide what to support and what to reject in politics? How does
one decide whom to support in elections? For what kinds of laws should the believer work and
fight? Robert Dugan, former director of the National Association of Evangelicals, suggests five
major principles to guide the Christian in assessing potential candidates and laws:
1. The preeminence of religious liberty—Any candidate or legislation that restricts the
practice of religious faith should be resisted.
2. The protection of life as sacred—Candidates or legislation that treat life frivolously or that
seek to destroy it (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, infanticide) should be resisted and defeated.

6
Cranfield, “The Christian’s Political Responsibility,” 185.
7
Charles Colson, “The Political Illusion,” Moody Monthly (October 1994), 22-25.

44
 3. Provision of justice for all—Candidates and legislation must reflect God’s concern for
justice and equity. The book of Amos is convincing evidence that God desires government to
promote laws that protect the poor and disadvantaged from exploitation and oppression.
4. Preservation of the traditional family—One of the clear teachings of the Bible is that the
family is a critical institution to God. Legislation that negatively impacts the family should be
rejected. For example, tax legislation that promotes single-parent families or penalizes a father
for living with his family is counterproductive. The promotion of same-sex marriages runs
counter to God’s revelation and should be rejected.
5. The promotion of Judeo-Christian values in education and legislation—For example,
values of honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, and accountability can be easily undermined
by a leader who wantonly lies and shows disrespect for the law. Fraud, bribery, and corruption
undermine public trust and confidence and are terribly destructive. Education must reinforce the
values of parents and not undermine their authority (Deut. 6:1–10).8
Christians, then, as salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16), should seek to effect righteous change in
the culture through the political process, not because the kingdom comes from Washington, but
because God expects us to be serving and waiting (1 Thess. 1:9–10).

The Role of the Church

Should the church as a local body of believers function as a political caucus or coalition or
operate at any other level of political activity? Some Christians believe local churches should not
be involved in political activities. They reason, first, that the laws of the United States are clear
concerning local churches not engaging in direct political activities (endorsing a particular
candidate). To do so would violate (and possibly result in the loss of) the nonprofit status for the
organizations. Secondly, the Bible gives no mandate or even logical inference for local church
political activity. Thirdly, there is no evidence of the early church being involved in politics.
Furthermore, the local church often lacks the necessary expertise for reasoned political
involvement and can even find its witness severely harmed. The local church is a spiritual body,
rooted in God’s revelation. Christians should individually be involved in the political arena, but
the local church will do so to its peril.
On the other hand, some Christians believe the local church is not ordained as a political
body; yet because individuals are charged with this responsibility, the collective group
involvement can most certainly impact politics and government. Therefore, local churches
should be involved with political issues relating to morality and justice.
Christians walk a careful balance between understanding the Christian obligation toward the
state and seeking to influence that state for righteousness and justice. The two spheres of the
Christian’s life—the church and the state—must be kept in balance. Each has a divine job to do;
neither should encroach upon the responsibility of the other.

8
Quoted in Bob Reynold, “Onward Christian Voters,” Moody Monthly (September/October 1996), 23-25.

45
46