Introduction to Christian Ethics

B. Th. III Class note

UNIT-2
WEEK 5
Lesson 13
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.” Think of double homicide.

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 (playfully). We
will study the word fetus in below.

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

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.

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

1
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
the fetus is dependent upon the mother, he or she is an independent individual. Also, there is
substantial identity between the embryo, the viable fetus, the infant, the child, the adult, and
the elderly person.1 The fetus is a person.

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:

Well 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.2

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 year3 since 1973, it is difficult to argue otherwise. Multiply it
out. That’s 1,460,000 human babies killed per year. Also know that, a lot of babies murderers
are celebrating Mother’s Day every year.

Lesson 14
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.
1
Paul and John Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1993), 58.
2
Paul and John Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, 71-72.
3
Marvin Olasky and Joel Belz, Whirled Views (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1997), 27.

2
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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 other’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.4

This has been defended in a number of ways. Some have argued that there are important
similarities to self-defence, and if that is morally justifiable, so is an abortion of this kind.
However, we believe there are important enough differences from self-defence 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

4
Paul B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1987), pp.
169– 170.

3
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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.

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.

Class discussion
WEEK 6
Lesson 16
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 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. 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?” (Exo. 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

4
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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 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

5
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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.5

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.

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
5
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.

6
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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, which 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. 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.

Lesson 17
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.

7
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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 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.

Class Review
WEEK 7
Lesson 19
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:

8
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
 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.”6
 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 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 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, 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.

Lesson 20

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

6
Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 156-157.

9
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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.

10
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note

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.

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:
 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 behaviour
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

11
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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.
 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.

Class discussion—Class Discussion on: How many genders are there? What is
Transgenderism? Can man be identified as woman? Yes/No why? Give your own opinion

WEEK 8
Lesson 22
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 God has said. This chapter has argued that the creation

12
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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 www.exodusinternational.org . 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 compassion. Only God, working through His Spirit to enable the church, can
accomplish this most difficult and seemingly impossible task.
Lesson 23
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. 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. 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 in
our fingertip (Mobile phone).

How should we define pornography? What is the effect on individuals and society? And what
is a biblical perspective on this? Let’s see.

13
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei
 Introduction to Christian Ethics
B. Th. III Class note
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 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.

Assessment—Take Quiz on Unit 1 & 2 20 Marks

14
Compiled by Gaiphiu Gonmei