The Sorry Condition of Christian Ethics

[Ernie]

The Sorry Condition of Christian Ethics by Roger Olsen

But my book was supposed to be about general Christian ethics, not just evangelical ethics. But, as you suggest, even among evangelical ethicists there is little agreement beyond the few issues you mention. Modern/contemporary evangelical ethics could benefit from a return to the ancient church fathers (pre-Constantine) and a divorce from Augustinian Christendom ethics.

But here I want to say to you, my faithful readers (and others), that what we need is some semblance of a center of Christian ethics such as that, to choose one example, celebrating the killing of even one terrorist is ethically and morally wrong—for Christians.

Let's take up Olsen's challenge folks! Let's reestablish a center of Christian ethics.

[Ernie]

Interesting interchange in the comments...

Obscurely

I'm guessing (hoping? praying!) that not many Anabaptists would count themselves members of the MAGA cult, or even ever have considered voting for a corrupt Godless grifter for president.

Roger Olson

I’m guessing (hoping and praying) that you are correct. Traditionally, Anabaptists have shunned politics as worldly. Few would believe in a “Christian nation” as that would go against their anti-Christendom ethos.

I wonder what the actual percentage figures are among Anabaptists. 1. Pro-Biden 2. Pro-Maga 3. Shun Politics

[Soloist]

One can find justifications of almost anything among them—including Luther’s command to the nobility of the German nation to slaughter the rebelling peasants and Calvin’s defense of the burning of Serventus. But those are only two examples. Both were strongly criticized by other Christian thinkers and leaders. Then, of course, was the great “Christian” debate over slavery with many Christians defending the “peculiar institutions”—as it was called in the American South.

I find the condition of Christian ethics absolutely appalling and sickening. It lacks any center, anything like doctrinal orthodoxy. Highly respected, allegedly devout Christian ethicists disagree radically with each other over questions such as war, capital punishment, poverty, abortion, biomedical ethics, and just about everything where there should be some kind of at least rough consensus.

Menno is a fine display of this. We have no unity on any of the issues he raises. Not even among the so called conservatives on here is there a unified position on any of these either. The only unity we have is that we have no unity.

[Biblical Anabaptist]

Interesting interchange in the comments...

Obscurely

I'm guessing (hoping? praying!) that not many Anabaptists would count themselves members of the MAGA cult, or even ever have considered voting for a corrupt Godless grifter for president.

Roger Olson

I’m guessing (hoping and praying) that you are correct. Traditionally, Anabaptists have shunned politics as worldly. Few would believe in a “Christian nation” as that would go against their anti-Christendom ethos.

I wonder what the actual percentage figures are among Anabaptists. 1. Pro-Biden 2. Pro-Maga 3. Shun Politics

That would be interesting to know, but I have a feeling that among conservative non-voting Anabaptists the percentage of 2's would be higher than the percentage of 3's. They perhaps would not proclaim that, but the tone of the after-church discussions and family gathering discussions, etc would lead me to believe that. Perhaps I find myself in the wrong circles.

[Soloist]

Interesting interchange in the comments...

Obscurely

I'm guessing (hoping? praying!) that not many Anabaptists would count themselves members of the MAGA cult, or even ever have considered voting for a corrupt Godless grifter for president.

Roger Olson

I’m guessing (hoping and praying) that you are correct. Traditionally, Anabaptists have shunned politics as worldly. Few would believe in a “Christian nation” as that would go against their anti-Christendom ethos.

I wonder what the actual percentage figures are among Anabaptists. 1. Pro-Biden 2. Pro-Maga 3. Shun Politics

That would be interesting to know, but I have a feeling that among conservative non-voting Anabaptists the percentage of 2's would be higher than the percentage of 3's. They perhaps would not proclaim that, but the tone of the after-church discussions and family gathering discussions, etc would lead me to believe that. Perhaps I find myself in the wrong circles.

What sort of group are you part of?

[nett]

One can find justifications of almost anything among them—including Luther’s command to the nobility of the German nation to slaughter the rebelling peasants and Calvin’s defense of the burning of Serventus. But those are only two examples. Both were strongly criticized by other Christian thinkers and leaders. Then, of course, was the great “Christian” debate over slavery with many Christians defending the “peculiar institutions”—as it was called in the American South.

I find the condition of Christian ethics absolutely appalling and sickening. It lacks any center, anything like doctrinal orthodoxy. Highly respected, allegedly devout Christian ethicists disagree radically with each other over questions such as war, capital punishment, poverty, abortion, biomedical ethics, and just about everything where there should be some kind of at least rough consensus.

Menno is a fine display of this. We have no unity on any of the issues he raises. Not even among the so called conservatives on here is there a unified position on any of these either. The only unity we have is that we have no unity.

From a Christian perspective, war, capital punishment, and abortion, are in the purview of the state, not the church. Community poverty is a burden that the church should bear, biomedical ethics are rapidly becoming a major dividing point, but that's relatively recent for most.

I think among the CMs, there is more unity on these issues than in most Christian circles.

[joey_the_ox]

Let's take up Olsen's challenge folks! Let's reestablish a center of Christian ethics.

Ethics derives from theological foundations. If there is not agreement on those foundations, there will not be agreement on ethical issues.

[Soloist]

Let's take up Olsen's challenge folks! Let's reestablish a center of Christian ethics.

Ethics derives from theological foundations. If there is not agreement on those foundations, there will not be agreement on ethical issues.

What do you deem as the theological foundation? I would hazard a guess that almost all of us have slightly different/to extremely different views.

[joey_the_ox]

I would hazard a guess that almost all of us have slightly different/to extremely different views.

Well then it probably would not do much good for each person to state their preferred foundation. The question might then be pushed back one level to the examination of the methodology one accepts for doing theology. For example, how do you go about distinguishing the content of divine revelation from personal opinions? And in a thread on "the sorry condition of Christian ethics," it is probably enough just to note that these levels are usually what determine severe ethical disagreements.

A quote from Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue seems relevant:

The most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are expressed is their interminable character. I do not mean by this just that such debates go on and on and on —although they do —but also that they apparently can find no terminus. There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture.

I would extract this quote from his intended context and rewrite the final sentence: "There seems to be no rational way of securing [ethical and theological] agreement in [contemporary Christian] culture."

MacIntyre goes on to say, after looking at some moral arguments:

Every one of the arguments is logically valid or can be easily expanded so as to be made so; the conclusions do indeed follow from the premises. But the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds. ... It is precisely because there is in our society no established way of deciding between these claims that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable. From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises; but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. Hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.

Again, the reader can make the necessary substitutions to apply this to ethical and theological debates within the context of contemporary Christian culture, broadly speaking.

[Soloist]

I would hazard a guess that almost all of us have slightly different/to extremely different views.

Well then it probably would not do much good for each person to state their preferred foundation. The question might then be pushed back one level to the examination of the methodology one accepts for doing theology. For example, how do you go about distinguishing the content of divine revelation from personal opinions? And in a thread on "the sorry condition of Christian ethics," it is probably enough just to note that these levels are usually what determine severe ethical disagreements.

A quote from Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue seems relevant:

The most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are expressed is their interminable character. I do not mean by this just that such debates go on and on and on —although they do —but also that they apparently can find no terminus. There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture.

I would extract this quote from his intended context and rewrite the final sentence: "There seems to be no rational way of securing [ethical and theological] agreement in [contemporary Christian] culture."

MacIntyre goes on to say, after looking at some moral arguments:

Every one of the arguments is logically valid or can be easily expanded so as to be made so; the conclusions do indeed follow from the premises. But the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds. ... It is precisely because there is in our society no established way of deciding between these claims that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable. From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises; but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. Hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.

Again, the reader can make the necessary substitutions to apply this to ethical and theological debates within the context of contemporary Christian culture, broadly speaking.

I would tend to agree with those conclusions. You can see this played out on Menno a number of times with these circular arguments with each side presenting their ethical viewpoint as right and ultimately we view and believe the Scriptures through our own lens. No one else can convince us we are wrong other then ourselves. Everyone comes to the table fully convinced of the rightness of their position and is unable to weigh the opponent's argument without a strong bias.
How would I determine

content of divine revelation from personal opinions?

Well I think that it ultimately comes to personal opinion as to what is divine revelation. Consider any doctrine and most people would argue its not just an opinion yet they hold an opinion.
This runs into a quandary particularly for someone that has abandon their upbringing for something else. No longer can they cling to their brought up training that is taught as divine truth but rather have to by opinion determine truth.