DISKUS Vol. 4, No.1 (1996) pp.64-73

Sources of Authority in Christian Ethics

Paul Badham 
Department of Theology & Religious Studies 
University of Wales, Lampeter 
Lampeter, Dyfed
Wales SA48 7ED

-------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
Given belief in creation Christians ought to feel uneasy when their moral code differs from that of an informed and ethically aware non-Christian. Examining the sources for Christian ethics makes it hard to justify the current differences in attitude on issues like in-vitro fertilisation or euthanasia. The empiricism of the 18th. century Bishop Butler or the Agape code of Jesus offer a way towards reconciliation. -------------------------------------------------------------


Christian ethical teaching derives from a range of sources. Some of these sources are common to all human beings, as when ethical behaviour is derived from philosophical reflection on empirical facts, but others are distinctive to the Christian believer, as when ethics are based on Christian scriptural authority or tradition. However Christians ought to feel uneasy in any situation where their moral values differ from those of a caring, thoughtful and well-informed atheist. This is essentially because any authentically good action ought to be good independent of whether or not an individual believes it to be in accordance with the will of God. For to suppose that a proposed course of action was simultaneously in accordance with God's will and yet not good in itself would be a profound contradiction. This gave rise to the famous dilemma in Greek Philosophy: "Is a deed good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" <1> From the perspective of a theist who supposes God both to be all-benevolent and all-knowing this choice would seem a false dichotomy since what such a God requires of human beings and what is independently recognisable as in their best interests should always coincide. This view has classically been expressed by Grotius in his definition of natural law in which he insists that true moral judgement is in principle deducible by reason, "etsi deus non daretur" (even if God did not exist).<2>

One way to relieve this tension and bring secular and religious thought into harmony might be to focus on one of the most fundamental Christian beliefs, the doctrine of creation. In one important strand of moral theology, that tradition of Anglican moral theology formulated by Bishop Joseph Butler in his Sermons preached in the Rolls Chapel in 1726, the doctrine of creation is the key doctrinal source for Christian ethics. As Butler says: 

"It cannot possibly be denied, that our being God's creatures, and virtue being the natural law we are born under, and the whole constitution of man being plainly adapted to it, are prior considerations to piety and virtue, than the consideration that God sent his Son into the world to save it." <3>

Starting from Creation involves careful consideration of the way the world is to try and see by observation what patterns of behaviour actually lead to human fulfilment and satisfaction, both as individuals and as members of society. Moral judgements will then be made on the basis of what one discovers. This method will lead to comparable results whether one looks at the world because one believes it to be a divine creation or because in the absence of a belief in God one can see no other starting point than to seek to derive moral principles from the study of human society and culture. A secular thinker might of course challenge Butler's view that the human constitution is naturally adapted to virtue, but it is important to note that this was not a premise for Butler, but rather a conclusion towards which be believed observation of human society pointed. Hence whether or not Butler's view of human nature is justified is an empirical claim to be tested by empirical observation rather than a religious claim which supposes itself immune to such verification. If however one were to arrive at the view that certain kinds of behaviour were in fact conducive to human well-being then one might accept Butler's linkage of what is natural to humanity with what is in fact required for virtuous living.

To see the doctrine of creation as a primary source for Christian ethics is to insist, as Bishop Butler always did, that empirical fact must always inform Christian moral thinking. This implies that religiously neutral means of seeking to get at such facts and to find appropriate means for their evaluation should not be rejected by the Christian thinker. Hence a sufficiently broadly based utilitarianism or a Kantian insistence on the universalisability of any ethical maxim might well be useful measuring tools to evaluate behaviour and would be ways of giving expression to the empiricism central to Butler's thinking. 


For many Christians revelation is a more important source for Christian morality than creation. They believe that through the Bible and the Christian tradition God has revealed his will which must therefore be obeyed. Up to a certain point there is no problem with this. The influence of Biblical ethics has been sustained at least in part by the appropriateness of its most prominent and general ethical codes. Those of the ten commandments which reflect on one's duty towards one's neighbour put forward generalisations widely relevant to human society. Communities are undoubtedly more stable when parents are honoured and where killing, stealing, lying, and committing adultery are not normative patterns of behaviour. Likewise much that the eighth prophets said about social justice and much of the teaching in Jesus' parables are of permanent value. The problems arise only when one moves on from broad-brush generalisations to the detail. All can agree with the general principle that "thou shalt not kill." But the extent to which such a maxim can validly be extended to such issues as the prevention of the implantation of a fetus, abortion, capital punishment, justified warfare, or euthanasia, remains highly controversial, and it is in these latter areas that moral controversies occur.

Further problems arise when other Biblical commands are considered. A Christian opposed to homosexuality might well appeal to the first half of Leviticus 20:13 which declares homosexual behaviour to be an abomination, but not even the most ardent homophobe would today agree with the second half of the verse which prescribes capital punishment for the practice. Likewise the burning of witches, the acceptance of slavery and the extermination of enemies are all now regarded as abhorrent in civilised societies. Consequently though Christians continue to appeal to biblical texts on moral issues, they tend to do in a manner akin to the way a drunk might use a lamp post, for support rather than illumination, in that they have no qualms in dismissing texts with which they themselves disagree. 

A more serious problem with treating Biblical commands as a norm for ethical behaviour was given in Butler's opening thesis which sets out with total clarity just why it is that one cannot determine one's ethical principles simply by reference to Biblical or Ecclesiastical tradition. According to Butler: 

"The Epistles in the New Testament have all of them a particular reference to the condition and usages of the Christian world at the time they were written. Therefore as they cannot be thoroughly understood, unless that condition and those usages are known and attended to: so further, though they be known, yet if they be discontinued or changed; exhortations, precepts, and illustrations of things, which refer to such circumstances now ceased or altered, cannot at this time be urged in that manner, and with that force which they were to the primitive Christians."<4>

The point is that moral judgements always arise out of particular contexts and cannot necessarily be applied in the same way when circumstances change. Butler's insight has become even more important now than it was in 1726 for many factors in the human situation have arguably changed more between his day and ours than it had from the New Testament to the early eighteenth century. And as we shall see, the areas of contemporary moral debate are precisely those areas in which change has been most prominent. For the present however let us not that even by 1726 it had become apparent to Bishop Butler that social change made it impossible simply to base an ethical code on New Testament teaching. 

A more hopeful source for Christian ethics is to delimit the scope of what is referred to by revelation and urge that the source for Christian ethics is not the Biblical revelation as a whole, but solely the revelation of God in Christ and such ethical behaviour as follows from belief in God and in the nature of the human relationship with God. There is much to be said for such a limitation. It would be hard to justify the continued use of the "Christian" unless one could relate one's ethical theories to the principles expounded by Jesus particularly in relation to the love of the neighbour. Likewise the difference between a "Christian" ethic from a wholly secular ethic will reflect the fact that a Christian may feel answerable to and dependent upon God in ways that a secular moralist will obviously not. But what will need to be explored is whether contemporary ethical thinking is actually linked to contemporary religious thinking or whether the link tends more often to be with earlier forms of theism which no longer reflect the living faith of Christians today.

To test this thesis and to explore the sources of Christian ethics further I suggest we look in detail at issues in medical ethics relating to the beginning and ending of human life where a clear divide has emerged between Christian and secular thought. This divide is a source of puzzlement, because instinctive Christian feelings of compassion and concern are often on the same side as that of secular theorists, but these feelings are overridden on supposedly theological grounds in favour of a more rigourist stance. Let me exemplify this by looking first at in-vitro research and then at euthanasia.

In-vitro research offers immense positive possibilities. The most obvious of course is the gift of a child to couples who have long yearned for a baby but been unable to have one. To help such couples may appear to Christian compassion to be a great good. Hence the spontaneous Christian instinct of Cardinal Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul 1st. led him to give a warm welcome to the first test tube baby,<5> before further consideration of the issues led his Church to a more negative stance towards it. Yet the restoration of hope to barren couples is only the first of many good things that in-vitro research can bring. It also offers the means to reduce or eliminate some of the terrible handicaps and disabilities that can be passed on by genetic defects, and it gives the promise of an enhanced understanding of the human organism which will in turn help our ability to fight disease. Hence as Cardinal Hume has acknowledged, if the rightness or wrongness of in-vitro research were considered "solely in utilitarian terms", everyone would be in favour of the continuation of such experiments. However the Cardinal thinks that once the "absolute moral values" of the "Judaeo-Christian tradition" are also taken into account a very different verdict is reached.<6> In adopting this attitude Cardinal Hume speaks for many Christians. For although some working parties of moral theologians and scientists have been favourably disposed to such research,<7> Christian opinion at grass-roots level is strongly opposed, and such opposition represents the unequivocal stance of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.<8>

A comparable situation arises in the case of euthanasia. A Christian instinct to prevent suffering may well lead an individual towards accepting euthanasia, and even Pope John Paul II acknowledges such persons may be acting in good faith. But nevertheless the main stream Churches continue to oppose the practice of euthanasia and any change in the law which would make it more likely to occur. This may be illustrated both in the evidence submitted by Christian bodies to the House of Lords Committee on Medical Ethics,<9> and in the uncompromising declaration of the latest Catholic Catechism which says:

"An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded." <10> 

By contrast many secular thinkers strongly support euthanasia. For example the British Humanist Association in its evidence to the Ethics Committee of the House of Lords pleaded the case for allowing euthanasia on the grounds that an absolutist stance on the sanctity of human life "depended on a religious outlook which not everyone shared" and they urged "it is particularly hurtful to require someone who does not believe in God or afterlife to suffer intolerable pain or indignity in deference to a God or afterlife he does not accept." <11> In fact the House of Lords' Committee "gave much thought" to the consideration that "for those without religious belief, the individual is best able to decide what manner of death is fitting to the life which has been lived." <12> By implication therefore the Ethics Committee recognised that they were dealing with a situation where there was a significant divide between the views of religious people on the one hand and those of secularists on the other, and they recognised their duty to try and prevent this fact from blurring the impartiality required of them as a body seeking to act on behalf of the community as a whole. 

However the fact that division of opinion on ethical issues at the beginning and end of human life tends to follow differences of opinion about matters of religious belief is an important consideration which needs to be brought into the current debate. Characteristically both in-vitro research and euthanasia are debated as medical, legal and sociological issues which philosophical thinking can illuminate. Yet although these are the terms in which the issues are publicly debated, the way people evaluate the various considerations depend for the most part on their religious outlook. Catholic Bishops and evangelical leaders have access to the same medical information, the same sociological and legal evidence, and the same philosophical arguments as do the members of the British Humanist Society. It is not in these areas that the moral division actually occurs even though both sides often conduct the debate as if they were. The actual locus of moral division on these particular ethical issues is religious. Hence what really needs discussion is the validity or otherwise of the theological grounds which actually determine the way that Christians characteristically approach these moral issues. What needs to be explored therefore are the sources of authority in Christian ethics to which appeal is being made in these issues.

This is particularly clear in the case of in-vitro research where, as we have already noted, Cardinal Hume has acknowledged that on any purely utilitarian calculus the benefits outweigh the costs and it is only when "absolute moral values" of the Judaeo- Christian tradition are taken into account that the practice is to be opposed. The case of Euthanasia is less clear, but even here the fact that the Pope recognises that support for euthanasia may be an error of judgement made in good faith implies a recognition that simply from a human perspective its wrongness is not necessarily apparent, and that it is theological moral values which are the fundamental source of the Church's opposition. 

In regard to IVF research the absolute moral values referred to by Cardinal Hume consist of two claims; first that the fetus is entitled to the full rights of human personhood from the moment of conception, and second that all issues concerning life and death lie in the sole prerogative of God. The first claim is actually rather hard to sustain on the basis of either biblical revelation or long ecclesiastical tradition. The dominant biblical view is that life commences only when the breath enters the nostrils for only then does the man or woman become "a living being". <13> Hence for the Bible a fetus is not a person, and the bringing about of a miscarriage is not homicide.<14> Likewise for most of the Christian centuries the Church took the view that personhood, characteristically referred to as "ensoulment," did not occur until the mother felt the child "quicken" in her womb at the end of the first trimester. Consequently St. Augustine , St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas all insisted that early abortion could not be classed as homicide,<15> and by implication still less could the destruction of an embryo in the process of IVF research. The Roman Catholic Church only began to claim that personhood went back to conception in 1869 when Pope Pius IX recognised this was an implication of his earlier proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 in which he had declared her immune from original sin from "the first instant of her conception".<16> This of course requires us to suppose that her personhood can be traced back to that moment. What this does show however is that the notion of personhood having its origin at conception is not a belief that goes back to the beginning of Christianity, but is simply the opinion of a nineteenth century Pope and one which goes against the unanimous teaching of all the Church Fathers and Schoolmen. 

Likewise Biblical authority cannot be used against euthanasia. Euthanasia is essentially a form of assisted suicide and although many believe that the "Everlasting has fixed his canon 'gainst, self-slaughter" and hence that "the calamity of so long life must be endured", the authority for this is Shakespeare speaking through Hamlet.<17> It is not actually the case that the Bible condemns self-slaughter and Biblical suicides are characteristically regarded as honourable. Thus the kamikaze deeds of Samson and Eleazar won them "an everlasting name" <18> and the decisions of Saul and of Razis to seek death before dishonour appear to be commended.<19>

In reality the reason Christians characteristically oppose in-vitro fertilisation is the belief that God alone is the true author of human life and we ought not to "play God" by intervening in the act of creation ourselves. Similarly euthanasia is thought to be wrong because it challenges the belief classically expressed by Aquinas, that "God alone has authority to decide about life and death." <20> The human obligation is simply to accept and abide by the will of God in such matters. The problem with this view is that however sincerely it may seem to be held the argument is no longer consistently applied. 

Although many Christians assume with Pope John Paul II that Christian beliefs and ethical values are absolute and unchanging <21> this is simply not the case. Many things that Christians of a former age believed to be morally acceptable are now held to be wrong and vice versa. Medical ethics provide the largest number of instances where Christians today almost unanimously accept as good, practices which their predecessors in the faith regarded as evil. For many centuries Christians forbad the giving of medicine deeming it equivalent to the practice of sorcery.<22> The practice of surgery, the study of anatomy, and the dissection of corpses for medical research were all at one time firmly forbidden.<23> Later the practices of inoculation and vaccination faced fierce theological opposition. Indeed in 1829 Pope Leo XII declared that whoever decided to be vaccinated was no longer a child of God; smallpox was a judgement of God, vaccination was a challenge to heaven.<24> For similar reasons the initial use of quinine against malaria was denounced by many Christians.<25> The introduction of anaesthesia and, above all, the use of chloroform in childbirth was seen as directly challenging the Biblical judgement that because of their inheritance of the guilt of Eve's original sin all women must face the penalty that "in pain you shall bring forth children."<26> Consequently the use of chloroform in childbirth was vigorously attacked from public pulpits throughout Britain and the United States,<27> and Queen Victoria's acceptance of such treatment was profoundly controversial. 

The root objection to all the medical practices mentioned above was the belief that the duty of human beings was to submit in patience to what God had willed. All innovations in medical practice were initially seen as implying a lack of faith and trust in God's good purposes. Doctors were accused of "playing God", of being unwilling to accept that God knows what is right for a particular person, of prying into sacred mysteries and areas of God's own prerogative.<28> Yet gradually all main stream Christian Churches have modified their teaching and the formerly criticised activity of the doctor has itself come to be seen as itself a channel of God's love and the vehicle of his providence. Consequently although the practice of medicine faced opposition in earlier centuries, a very close relationship now often exists between doctors and clergy and medically-trained missionaries have made a substantial contribution to the world-wide diffusion of Western medicine. Christians today are happy to think of doctors as fulfilling the will of God in restoring to health persons struck down by curable illness. Instead of their actions being seen as challenging divine providence they are seen as agents of that providence. 

The salient point for our present purposes however is to note that the same arguments as were used in the past against the use of medicine in a whole range of contexts as are used today against medical research into the early formation of embryos and against the use of medicine to bring death forward in the case of terminal illness. The implication of this is that the Christian Churches today are being wholly inconsistent in opposing in-vitro research and euthanasia while enthusiastically supporting medical efforts to fight disease. The change which has taken place in the understanding of divine providence as it affects the acceptability of fighting disease has equal application to the possibility of accepting the practice of embryo research and of euthanasia as situations where the participating doctors may in fact be channels of God's providence and agents of God's love if in fact the end result of their action was to enhance the perceived quality of human life.

Hence I suggest that the theological arguments used by Christians against both IVF and euthanasia are without foundation because they represent an understanding of providence which has been shown to be abandoned by the Church's reconciliation of itself to the practice of medicine. It seems therefore entirely legitimate for a Christian to look at these moral problems through the same eyes as the secular moralist and to weigh up the pros and cons on the basis of such medical, philosophical, sociological and legal data as seem appropriate to be considered.

The contribution a Christian commitment might make is that a Christian is more explicitly required than a non-Christian to abide by the law of out-going unselfish love summed up in Jesus' golden rule that we should always treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves. On the issue of euthanasia one might also be influenced by the fact that from a Christian perspective death is not the ultimate disaster but the gateway into eternal life. And in approaching the issue of whether to use IVF to help a childless couple towards parenthood we can consider whether such an action is a true expression of love toward them. And with regard to the possible legalisation of euthanasia we can ask whether such a course of action is or is not the most loving course of action towards a person who wishes release from the suffering of a long terminal illness. 

Christians like others may well come down on different sides of the fence on such questions. There is no current consensus in such areas and the ethical arguments are keenly balanced. The sole purpose of this paper is to argue that if one explores the sources of Christian ethics one can no longer preclude discussion by supposing that there are some revealed absolute truths which compel a Christian moralist to take one side rather than another in these areas of contemporary moral concern.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Badham is Professor and Head of Department of Theology & Religious Studies, University of Wales, Lampeter.


Notes

1. The Euthyphro Dilemma

2. Grotius

3. Butler, Fifteen Sermons 1726, Bell, London, 1964 p.31

4. Butler, Sermons p.30

5. Interview in 'Prospecto nel Mondo' cited by D. Yallop, In God's Name (London: Guild 1984), p.200ff.

6. Basil Hume, Why Warnock is wrong, The Times, June 6th. 1985.

7. General Synod Board for Social Responsibility, Personal Origins (London, Church Information Office 1985); Free Church Federal/British Council of Churches, 'Choices in Childlessness'. London, Free Church Council 1982.

8. See article by Cardinal Hume cited in note 2 above and note that the Catholic Bishops Joint Committee on Bio-Ethical Issues made a very critical response to the Warnock report in 1984. For an orthodox view see M.O. Clement, 'To whom does the Embryo Belong?' in Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, (Edinburgh: Clarke, 1985) p. 500.

9. House of Lords, Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics HMSO 31st January 1994

10. Pope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapman 1994 p.491

11. Select Committee on Medical Ethics p.24

12. Select Committee on Medical Ethics p.48

13. Genesis 2:7

14. Exodus 21:22 For discussion and documentation see Paul Badham, Ethics on the Frontiers of Human Existence, New York: Paragon, 1992 p.56.

15. General Synod Board for Social Responsibility, Personal Origins, London: Church Information Office 1985, pp. 24-25.

16. For full discussion of all this see my Ethics on the Frontiers of Human Existence New York, Paragon, 1992

17. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 2, line 129ff; Act III, Scene 1, line 56ff.

18. Judges 17:28-30, I Maccabees 6:44 Note: The allusion to 'winning an everlasting name' relates to kamikaze action of Eleazur not Samson.

19. I Samuel 31: 3-6, 2 Samuel 1:11-27, 2 Maccabees 14:41-42.

20. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Question 64, Article 5.

21. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor 1994

22. The giving of medicine is expressly forbidden in the early Christian book of teaching called the Didache 2:2. It may also be forbidden in the Bible in Galatians 5:20 where 'pharmakeia' is banned. This is frequently translated as a ban on sorcery, but reference to any Greek dictionary will show that the word's primary meaning was the use of any drugs, potions or spells. This emphasis is even clearer in the use the root word 'pharmakon'. (See for example Liddell and Scotts' Greek-English Lexicon of 1892).

23. For details see A.D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology, Harvard 1955 Vol.2. pp.36ff.

24. Derek Holmes, The Triumph of the Holy See, Burns and Oates 1978, p.82.

25. Cf. White, Warfare and Science with Theology, Vol. 2. P.36ff.

26. Genesis 3:16

27. White, Warfare of Science with Theology, Vol.2. p.63.

28. White, Warfare of Science with Theology, Vol.2, Ch.13.

END