CHRISTIAN ETHICS AS A DISCIPLINE

(George F. Thomas)
In the study of Christian Ethics these two sided must be present: the clarification of the fundamental
principles of the Christian life, and the interpretation of how the Christian community needs to make ethical
judgment and to act in the light of its faith and convictions. In other words, the study of Christian Ethics as
an academic discipline has two general aspects: the theoretical and the practical. The theoretical aspect
deals with the definition of the discipline, its nature, its criteria, its methods, and its problems and prospects.
Moreover, it deals with the clarification of the foundations and basic principles of Christian Ethics. The
practical aspect deals with how the Christian community ought to decide and act in the face of an obligation
or responsibility. This particular study stresses how the Christian ought to decide and act in the light of his
own Christian faith and convictions to fully develop himself as a human being.

A. Definition of Christian Ethics

The term “ethics” and “moral” are closely related. The term “ethics” is derived from the Greek word “ethos”
which originally meant customs, habitual conduct, usages, and much later, character. The term “moral” is
derived from the Latin word “mores”, which signifies customs and habits. But customs, habits and practices
evoke approval, hence ethics and moral have reference to the things which people approve as good, right,
desirable, obligatory, worthy, and so forth.
On the other hand, the term, “Christian Ethics” may be used in four different senses depending on
the emphasis a user is making. These four senses are:

1. As a moral code. A moral code is a specific standard of human behavior designed to meet the need of
a particular group of people. The best example of this is the professional code of ethics. Hence, we have
“Medical Ethics”, “Business Ethics”, “Teacher’s Ethics”, etc. A code specifies how a member of a
group relates himself to (a) profession or work, (b) his fellow workers, and (c) his community or the
general public. Take the case of “Medical Ethics”. In a Christian context this code spells out how a
Christian doctor ought to regard his own profession, how he ought to relate himself to his fellow doctors
and how he ought to relate himself to the patients. In this case, Christian Ethics means medical ethics
as a moral code.

2. As a metaethics. This is a branch of philosophy which is primarily concerned with the discussions of
the meanings or uses of moral terms and utterances about the nature of moral concepts. In other words,
it is “a study of the words and concepts that we use for making decisions, advising, warning, and
appraising conduct”. The direct object of this study is not practice but knowledge: knowledge of the
distinctive uses or roles of moral language or knowledge of the meanings of moral concepts.
Metaethical statements are about the uses or meanings of normative ethical statements, utterances, or
terms about the logical status of moral claim, about the nature of moral arguments, or about what
constitutes a morality. Two examples of metaethical statements: “Moral utterances are neither
autobiographical statements nor statements of non-natural fact but expressions of emotion”. “Good” is
the name of a simple, unanalyzable, non-natural quality. Metaethics has been referred to as an analytical
ethics, critical ethics, theoretical ethics, the epistemology of ethics, the logic of ethics, or semantics of
ethics. Christian Ethics may be used in this sense.

1
3. As a way of life. In this context it is “way of life” exemplified by Jesus Christ. As such, it is both general
and particular. General because it embraces the whole of life. Particular because it is a “way of life”
specifically seen and patterned after the life of Jesus. It is the Christian way of life. An ethicist puts it
this way: “Christian Ethics is a systematic study of a way of life exemplified by Jesus and applied to
the demands and decisions of personal and social existence”. In this sense, Christian Ethics is not a
study of rules and regulations of life itself as conceived by the Christian. In the same way one can speak
of “Buddhist Ethics” if one means a way of life exemplified by Buddha, or of “Muslim Ethics” if one
means a way of life patterned after the life of Muhammad. In brief, Christian Ethics in this sense is a
particular ethical system.

4. As a disciplined study. This is the academic sense of Christian Ethics. As a discipline it organizes itself;
it has its own field of concerns, its methodology, its criteria, and its practitioners. As one practitioner
puts it: “It is a disciplines study of obligation, its nature, its justifications, its consequences, and its
strategies”. In this context Christian Ethics is a disciplined study of what a Christian ought to do in the
face of responsibility and how he ought to do it. In brief, Christian Ethics is a systematic reflection on
Christian duty.

Primarily the last two definitions combined together constitute the sense in which Christian Ethics is used
in this study. Thus, Christian Ethics is a systematic and disciplined study of the style of life and obligation
of the Christian in particular, and, all human kind and the entire creation in general.

B. Its Nature as a Discipline

As a disciplined study Christian Ethics possesses the following unique characteristics:
1. It is a normative discipline. It is primarily concerned with the establishing of norms or standards of
conduct to be followed by a group. Ethical discourse involves at least three levels: descriptive level
where we find the sciences which primarily deal with the description of what “is”; the normative level
where we find ethics which deals primarily with what ought to be: and the justification level where we
find theology which gives the justification for doing what we ought to do. Thus, when we speak of
norms in this case we do not mean “operating norms” (descriptive ethics) but we mean “ideal norms”
(normative ethics) which serve as our moral beacon. In short, it is normative in the sense that it is a
search for ought.

2. It is inclusive. It is inclusive in the sense that it includes all of man’s moral experiences for its data. It
includes the experience of telling a lie or being lied to, of stealing or being stolen from, of cheating or
being cheated, etc. It includes also the experience of being forced to do something which one does not
want to do either by the authority of the state or the church or the family. It includes all aspects of
human life. In short, it includes the whole moral ethos. The moral ethos is a “subtle web of values,
meanings, purposes, expectations, and legitimations that constitutes the operating norms of a culture in
a relationship to a social entity”.

3. It is interdisciplinary. It is interdisciplinary in the sense that it “commits practitioners to undertake joint,

supplementary, or complementary theoretical and empirical studies” in theology, Bible, philosophy,

2
 and the sciences. Christian Ethics cannot stand alone as a discipline. It needs the secular wisdom coming
from the sciences and the religious wisdom coming from the theological, philosophical, and Biblical
studies. In turn it gives the practitioners of the sciences the moral guidance and insights needed in the
use and application of the scientific findings. Ethics and theology are interrelated both in terms of
content and methods. As one writer puts it, “Ethics is theology sent on an errand”.

4. It is reflective/critical/open. It is reflective because it seeks to set forth a system or standard of human

conduct. It tries to show how that system of human conduct and certain fundamental normative
statements can be rationally pursued and supported. It is critical and open because it takes into
consideration all available data needed to make a decision. It critically looks into all standards of human
conduct and chooses the most appropriate one to achieve its goals. The difference between “being
moral” and “being ethical” lies in the fact of “being reflective and critical”. The moral person obeys
the laws before thinking or even without thinking, but the ethical person thinks critically before
obeying. In brief, Christian Ethics is a rational, critical, and open-ended search for an emergent
coherence (unity).

C. Its Criteria of Obligation (Ought)

Various criteria have been used by Christians throughout the history of the Christian religion. But for
our purpose in this study we use the following major criteria of obligation.

1. Criterion of right (or wrong). The assumption of this criterion is that there are universal and
fixed moral imperatives or laws which are binding upon all persons. The fundamental question
is: “What is the chief duty of a person?” the chief duty of the person is to obey the laws. To do
right is to follow the law, but to do wrong is to violate it. In other words, whatever is said or
done in obedience to the law is right; whatever is said or done in disobedience to the law is
wrong. The law provides precise moral guidance. So, this criterion is used by many Christians
because of its preciseness.

Nevertheless, criticisms are leveled against the criterion. First, this tends to be legalistic,
giving very little freedom to those who use it. There is a tendency to follow what is written
only in the law and oftentimes the spirit of the law is forgotten. Second, there are laws which
are unjust and obsolete, and so, they must not be followed. If we do become unjust or e become
irrelevant. A third criticism is that sometimes what is just or good is prohibited by an
established law. Jesus found himself in this situation in his time with regard to the laws of
Judaism so that He was prompted to remark and said: “The Sabbath is made for man and not
man for the Sabbath”. Because of these weaknesses of the criterion of right some Christians
prefer to use another criterion, that of good.

2. Criterion of Good (or bad/evil). This criterion assumes that there is the “highest good or
purpose” in life. Thus the fundamental question is: “What is the chief end (telos) of life?” The
answer to this question depends upon one’s philosophical and religious orientation. For some,
like the Greek philosophers, happiness is the highest good in the life. For others, like the
Christians, to love God, to worship Him, and to serve Him is the highest purpose in life. Still
for others, life itself is the highest good. Therefore, one has to know one’s highest good or
purpose in life in order that one can achieve it. To achieve one’s highest goof a person has to

3
 employ virtues, or maxims, or principles. A principle is a statement of general truth which has
to be interpreted in the light of needs and situations. Thus, a principle gives more freedom to
those who use it than a law does. Given a principle, everything that a person does which helps
fulfill his highest purpose in life is good; whatever he does that hinder its achievement is bad
or evil.

A basic criticism against the criterion is that the definition or location of the highest good
or purpose is controversial. Now, where does one find the highest good? Some find it within
themselves. Others find it in the world outside themselves. Still others find it in the Eternal
God. Still many others claim that it is indefinable. In short, there is no agreement as to what or
where is the highest good located. This criterion is vague and confusing, so many Christians
prefer to use another one that of criterion is fit.

3. Criterion of fit (or unfit). This criterion assumes that there is a most fitting situation in which
to perform an act. This further assumes that there are no fixed universal laws. There is only one
principle, that of love. So, the fundamental question is “What is the most loving thing or act a
person can do in this particular situation?” To answer this question most appropriately the
person must know the situation very well and must take into consideration the wisdom of the
community. But he makes the final decision himself as to what and how he ought to decide in
a moral situation given the principle of love.

Many criticism are leveled against the criterion. For one thing, this is your subjective and
gives too much freedom to the individual Anyone can and may decide to do an act which
appears to him most loving when in reality it is most selfish. Maturity and wisdom are required
on the part of the individual or in order for him to evaluate most correctly the most loving act
in a most fitting situation given the principle of love alone. For another thing, this is too
concrete and situated and cannot be employed in a national or international decision-making
where a more complicated situation is involved. Finally, this will lead to chaos because
different persons will interpret differently the principle of love even if given the same situation.
Therefore, many Christian not satisfied with any of the three criteria above, prefer another
criterion, that of meaning.

4. Criterion of meaning (or meaningless). The assumption here is that life is meaningful.
Whatever one says or does has or should have meaning. But what is the basis of meaning?
Meaning is based on authentic existence which in turn requires freedom. In other words, a
person must have a freedom to say, to do, and to live in a way that makes sense to him or her.
Thus, whatever contributes to a meaningful, coherent life is what really counts. One may follow
a law, or a wise counsel, or use a principle or maxim, or depend upon a situation or on God’s
revelation, to achieve a meaningful and coherent existence. The point is one must to be free to
make and act on one’s decision effecting one’s life.

A basic criticism against this criterion is that this is too broad and gives a person too much
freedom to interpret the meaning of life. This will certainly lead to conflicting decisions,
actions, and style of life. Furthermore, this can be sustained only in a pluralistic society, not in
totalitarian or an authoritarian (martial law) society.

4
D. Problems/Prospects/Challenges
There are certain factors in human life which pose as both problems and challenges. Some of these
factors may be pointed out as follows:
1. Divergent perspectives
People, including teachers and students have different assumptions or estimates of life and reality.
There are those who look at life and reality from the religious perspective and there are those who look at
the same from the scientific perspective. The first one emphasizes the activity of God in human affairs and
dependence upon God; while the second one emphasizes the activity of man in shaping his own destiny and
his dependence upon himself for his own welfare and salvation. When a person is strongly influenced by
either one to the exclusion of the other, the problem of understanding Christian Ethics emerges. In short,
we have our own “filters” or “lens” through which we look at life which may either help or hinder our
understanding of what is right, good, fit, or meaningful.
2. Contextual or situational differences
For one thing, this means differences in the context or situation of those who study Christian Ethics.
This also means the difference between the context in which the Bible (our basic source for Christian Ethics)
was written and the context in which it is now being taught.
The first case spells out the difficulty in teaching a class of people who come from different situations
in life both in terms of culture and of social status. Some have upper class values: others have middle class
values; still others have lower class values. Thus, there arise a conflict of values and it is difficult, if not
impossible, to arrive at a standard of human behavior acceptable to all.
The second case brings to us the fact that the Bible is silent on many ethical issues that are urgent and
important to us today. For example, the Bible, in general and Jesus in particular, is silent on the issue of
pollution and population explosion, to cite two cases. This is so because there were not pressing social
issues in Jesus’ time and world. If these were, Jesus would have said something about these matters and we
would have a clearer guide on how to handle such problems. What Jesus left us is a style of life centered
on love for God and love for neighbors. So we have to do the best we can to reinterpret Jesus’ teachings for
our day and time. This is both a problem and a challenge to us.
3. Knowledge explosion
The explosion of knowledge owing to scientific discoveries complicates the teaching-learning process
of Christian Ethics. The more we discover scientific knowledge about reality the more the traditional
Christian teachings are threatened and challenged. For example, the Darwinian anthropology, which
emphasizes the evolutionary origin of man, has challenged our traditional view of the creation of man as
told by the Bible. Modern anthropology has also declared that man is by nature polygamous. The Freudian
psychology has challenged our basic Christian affirmation that God is our creator because it has declared
that the emergence of God was due to man’s psychological needs. Modern psychology has also affirmed
that man has tremendous inner mental powers that are not yet fully discovered and developed.
Although modern science does not deny the existence of an Eternal Reality (God) there are certain
scientific discoveries that bring to mankind grave ethical difficulties. For example, the discovery of the
atomic power poses a moral dilemma for man. What ought man to do in the face of such a power available

5
to him? In medical science, to cite another example, the discovery, and practice of transplanting human
organs (i.e., heart) poses the ethical question whether man is or is not playing God while doing this thing.
Indeed, knowledge explosion in science is accompanied by the explosion of ethical issues. Thus, Christian
Ethics can only suggest at best a tentative ethical standard of human behavior. Its task is an ever ongoing
(continuous) process. Its field of main concern is open-ended.
4. Advent of movement
A movement such as nationalism or patriotism can either enhance or hinder the teaching-learning
process of ethical standards. Narrow-minded nationalism or patriotism, contradicts the Christian teaching
of universal concerns. It creates in people a feeling of (anti-ism), not only against foreigners but even against
our people who do not subscribe to the brand of nationalism or patriotism we hold. Such bigoted
nationalistic spirit would hinder our search for a common standard of national discipline and conduct. Such
a spirit needs a corrective that is allowance for some degree of liberality and tolerance for others who differ
from us for mutual enrichment and enlightenment.
Ecumenism, as another example, could be destructive, if it’s the only kind within the church. It tends
to be exclusivist, characterized by rigidity and intolerance, disrespect and denial of God’s revealing
unobtrusive approaches in his love for others of other living faiths. Also it tends to be inclusivist, for it
preempts Jesus Christ’s finality and uniqueness, and affirms a priori the superiority of Christianity over all
other religious, evaluates other religious traditions “not in themselves but in relation to Christianity,” which
is religious arrogance, triumphalism, and imperialism. Still another wholesome tendency is to be relativist,
a kind of “strategy of playing down differences”. It believes that each religion is equally true in its own
way and essence, and that religious ‘peace’ is achieved by ignoring differences and contradictions. But this
is artificial, shallow, and dishonest. Thus, it is not a solution, rather, it only ignores the problems that it
claims to have solved.
And yet, ecumenism, if it goes beyond the church, could be creative. This is the pluralist model. It
upholds a theology of religious dialogue and pluralism, which “holds that God has manifested and revealed
himself in various ways to different people in their perspective situations”. The Biblical message insists on
the “previousness” of grace: God’s acceptance of us before our acceptance of Him. In this sense, the “people
we meet of whatever religion, race, or age, are all God’s people”. It means the other person is as much of a
child of God as I am and you which should be the basis of our relationship with our neighbors. That attitude
is at the heart of being in dialogue --- which is also at the very heart of the cross --- the consequences of
Jesus’ teaching on love. The message which Jesus gave was good news: that God loves us first and that this
is unchanging, unfailing, and always available.
Hence, the incarnation is “God’s dialogue with the world – an expression of how God always stands
with the human community”. The central message of the Bible is deeply incarnational and dialogical. It
implies that people of other faiths are not outside the saving activity, initiative, and loving concern of God.
For the God of the Bible whom Jesus revealed to us and called Father, rules overall and is in all. His love
embraces all humanity and the entire creation.
This pluralist paradigm affirms the most striking fact in the Synoptics: that Jesus’ own life is entirely
God-centered, God-dependent, and God-ward. It is a telling argument that the center of God’s saving design
for humankind belongs to God alone, having manifested and revealed himself in various ways to different
peoples in different cultures, also embodied each in their own way, such as divine self-revelation. This
model sets Christianity in a new and alarming light where there can no longer be any a priori assumption
of overall superiority; rather, the Christian tradition is now seen as one of a plurality of contexts of salvation
--- contexts, . . . “within which the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to God . . . is

6
occurring”. This is the most human and humble way, to set aside, the unity we are seeking, and give a
chance for the unity which is seeking us from God. And this could be the birth of the new Ecumenical
Movement --- the answer to Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21)”.
To sum it up, the word “ecumenical” or “ecumenics” comes from the Greek original “OIKOUMENE”
which means “household” or “the whole inhabited earth”. Ecumenism creates an atmosphere of universal
understanding and unity. It emphasizes that human beings are all members of the same household of God.
As members of the same household they should treat each other with respect and understanding. It creates
among people the desire for unity in diversity. It encourages open and frank discussion of differences and
conflicts. It is characterized by the spirit which allows themselves to differ but resolves to love.
In concluding this unit of study it is fitting to underscore the importance of the discipline of Christian
Ethics. What is said above stresses the fact that Christian Ethics is an academic discipline comparable to
other disciplines in the sense that it has its own nature, its field of concerns, its criteria, its methods, a unique
academic discipline because its primary aim is to criticize standards of moral decision, actions, and behavior
with the end in view of finding one which is most acceptable to the Christian community and most helpful
in its thinking, decision-making, and practicing its own faith in this present complex world. The importance
of Christian Ethics cannot be overemphasized. Man is a social and ethical being and as such he needs a
guide --- an ethical system and a Person. Jesus, as the Christ.
DIGEST OF DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
1. Ethics is the study and evaluation of standards of human conduct (Moral Philosophy)
2. Ethics may be defined as a study of a particular system or ethical standards (i.e., Hindu ethics, Muslim
ethics, Christian Ethics, etc.).
3. Ethics is the disciplined study of obligation, its nature, its justifications, its consequences, its strategies.
It is in simplest terms, reflection on ought (Stackhouse, Max).
4. Ethics may be defined as critical study of morality. It consists of a systematic analysis of the nature of
the moral life of man, including both the standards of right and wrong by which his conduct may be
guided and the goals toward which it may be directed. (It is) . . . concerned with practical moral choices
. . . and . . . with the ideal goals and principles . . . The study of ethics rests upon the assumption that
man is both free and responsible. (Garner, E. Clinton).
5. Christian Ethics is the science of human conduct as it is determined by Divine conduct. (Brunner,
Emil).
6. Christian Ethics is a systematic study of a way of life exemplified and taught by Jesus, applied to the
daily demand and decisions of personal and social existence. (Harkness, Georgia).
7. Theology is reflection on the action and nature if God; ethics is reflection on the response of man to the
action and nature of God. (Neihbur, H. Richard).
8. Ethics is often used to refer to the task of careful reflection several steps removed from the actual
conduct of men. It is theoretical task; reflection on the ways in which moral action occurs, the
assumptions and presuppositions of moral life.
Moral is often used to refer to the actual conduct of men. It is a practical task: giving directions to
human behavior in the light of what one believes to be right, or good. At the level of morals one is asking,
“What ought I do in this place of responsibility?” or this, “Is what I am interested in really good?” At the
level of ethics one is asking, “What fundamental principles are involved in determining an answer to the
moral questions?” “What is the nature of the goof?” (Gustafson, James).
9. Christian ethics is a history, statistics, and politic of the Kingdom of God (Rothe).
10. Christian ethics is the science of living well with one another according to Christ.” (Rom. 15:5)