Moody Theological Seminary

7-1 Ministerial Code of Ethics Paper

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course:

PS-6607 Professional Ethics

Presented by: Kyle McMahon

Student ID: 4112687

Box # 218

kmcmahon@moody.edu

Instructor: J. Brian Tucker, Ph.D.

June 7, 2015

I. Introduction

In an effort to elucidate an ethical ministry code this introduction section of the

professional ethics paper will survey the following: (1) the difference between morality and

ethics; (2) normative ethics and the role pastors play as an authority; and (3) deontological

systems and their use within a local church. Furthermore, in addition to surveying the content of

the aforementioned topics this section will too evaluate their collective relevancy.

1. Morality and Ethics

Morality and ethics operate in a symbiotic relationship; that is, morality and ethics are

unique entities that exist in close proximity to one another, typically to their mutual benefit.

Nonetheless, despite their proximity, morality and ethics are distinct. The difference between

morality and ethics may appear arbitrary; however, morality defines personal character by

distinguishing right from wrong and ethics stresses the process or system by which morality

(right and wrong) is applied. In other words, ethics provides direction to morality - codes of

behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs.1

Irrespective of profession, vocation, or ministerial role morality and ethics are relevant

topics. That is, whether one submits to a biblical worldview or views ethics through a competing

lens, morality and ethics come to bear at the most basic level of our human experience, reaching

into both public and private spheres. Therefore, based on humanity’s connectivity with morality

and ethics at our most fundamental levels, private sensations2 - in negative and positive postures

alike – it is vital to engage their symbiotic relationship in order to better formulate an ethical

ministry code.

1 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 12.2 The basis for positing morality and ethics affect our basic human experience is gleaned Stanton L. Jones thoughts about an integrationists perspective in psychology see: Eric L. Johnson, Psychology and Christianity - Five Views, 2nd ed. (Dowers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010).

2. Normative Ethics and Pastoral Authority

By way of definition, normative ethics refers to the formation of prescriptive norms as

they relate to right and wrong (morality). Herein, pastor/elders are implicitly linked to moral

prescriptions the moment they preach or teach authoritatively from scripture. In other words,

normative ethics, as an over-arching category, informs how morally explicit information

disseminates within local Christian assemblies. The Bible, affirmed as God’s authoritative source

on human flourishing, provides principlizing information for all of humanity generally, and

specifically for adherents to the faith.3 Therein, the Bible normalizes, but how does this relate to

pastor/elders?

Pastor/elders operate in differing and various leadership functions depending on

denomination and tradition; but for the sake of better understanding a pastor/elders relationship

to normative ethics and authority this paper will assume a plurality of elders, wherein no single

man is given autocratic rule within a local assembly; rather, pastor/elders in complementary

fashion – based on giftedness – serve the church by leading.4 Based on this leadership model, we

can assume at least two things. First, pastor/elders are in a place of authority within local church

assemblies based up God’s word. That is, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter

5:1-4, men are given the responsibility to oversee and shepherd the church. Second, pastor/elders

are men willing serve the church by leading in an uplifting manner not in domineering fashion.

In turn, we can assume pastor/elders are authorized as under-shepherds to uphold God’s word

amongst God’s people. Therefore, normative ethics best describes the dissemination of pastoral

authority/responsibility. Furthermore, due to the broad sweeping implications of morality and

3 The general principles are manifest via natural law where God, as its source, holds all of humanity accountable for their sin (Romans 2:1-16).4 I do not find this leadership model to impinge one’s ability to talk about normative ethics and pastoral authority because the model progresses the conversation to where pastor/elders gain their authority, God’s word, and thereby supplements the sub-topic.

ethics - that is, the need to discern what is right and wrong and how those moral imperatives

function with human experiences – pastor/elder authority ought to be evaluated within a secular

space based on biblical evidence pointing to natural law, with God as its ultimate source.

3. Deontological Systems and the Church

According to Rae, author of Moral Choices, “deontological systems are based on

principles in which actions (or character, or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong.”5

Rightly understood, deontology is an extension of normative ethics wherein moral norms are

found to be absolute in negative and positive capacities. The basis for deontological emphasis on

inherently right or wrong principles is displayed in layers. That is, God’s word principlizes moral

conduct informing ethics; in turn, based on God’s character – revealed within God’s word – one

arrives at the definitive source of moral authority, God himself. The natural extension of God’s

polarizing character6 are his commands – often articulated in reference to ethics as: Divine

Command Theory.7 Although God’s commands are logically subordinate to his character the

nature of God’s commands are nonetheless absolute; but absolute for whom?

In order to tackle this question this section of the paper will start out broadly and then

narrow its focus on “whom.” First, all of humanity is held responsible for their actions due to the

biblical moral precepts, which commend themselves to humanity via natural law illumined in

creation.8 In other words, “natural law posits that moral precepts exist prior to God’s commands

given in special revelation.”9 Based on this premise, all of humanity is accountable to God’s

5 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 17.6 Leviticus 20:26; 1 Peter 1:67 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 47.8 Romans 2:1-169 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 49.

commands; moreover those who follow Christ as their savior and redeemer. That is, as noted

previously, God’s commands are revealed specifically and infallibly through the Bible.

Therefore, the extension of God’s moral absolutes - nested within his commands and contingent

upon his character - are given specifically for those who are in-Christ, namely Christians.

Being in-Christ, by the work of Christ, accomplishes a unique number of things related to

salvation,10 but within the scope of morality and ethics being in Christ links a Christ-follower to

God’s non-conflicting absolute commands; thereby compelling his followers to obey his

commands which glorifies God and promulgates joy. Thus, we can conclude that a deontological

ethical system, which implicates all of humanity throughout human history, resonates amidst our

collective experiences.

II. Pastoral Ethics Expanded:

The following sections will survey and unpack nuances of pastoral ethics in relationship

to one’s (1) congregation, (2) colleagues, and (3) community writ large. Furthermore, this

section will also examine the nexus of pastoral ethics in relationship to (4) sexual as well as (5)

overarching principles that inform pastoral ethics. In addition to working through various

pastoral ethics nuances this section will also address (6) legal, (7) practical, and (8) ethical issues

related to ministry practice.

1. Pastoral Ethics and the Congregation:

Engaging one’s congregation is teeming with dynamic interpersonal exchanges; therefore

when I consider guiding my congregants through ethical and moral dilemmas, I do so in a

manner I myself would navigate them; that is, with patience, forbearance, and discipline.

Patience affords me bandwidth interpersonally in order that I might gather all the facts in an

ethical or moral dilemma. Forbearance restrains my response. That is, when a young man is more

10 Romans 8

captivated by his sexual appetite than his spiritual one forbearance makes space for grace.

Nonetheless, if this same young man fails to desist, it logically proceeds than guiding him well

also predicates discipline. The author of Hebrews captures discipline framed by forbearance and

patience well by affirming that discipline may appear unpleasant for a short time but the reward

yields fruit worthy of the training.11

Ultimately, these guidance points engage pastoral integrity. In other words, when I

submit my life and ministry to the aforementioned logical progression (patience-forbearance-

discipline), I implicitly invite accountability externally and examination internally. Additionally,

providing a framework such as this cultivates a structure for praying and thinking through church

problems can flourish.12 Patience directs us to think about God’s patience and long-suffering

with us, our sin, and short-comings; which in turn affords often due perspective on our church’s

short-comings, sin, and challenges. Furthermore, forbearance – similar to patience – compels

pastor/elders to consider all possible alternatives nested within a given challenge with restraint

before moving forward with discipline or grace. Altogether, guidance in ethical/moral challenges

and prayerful consideration therein fall back on pastoral leadership.13

2. Pastoral Ethics and My Pastoral Colleagues:

In addition to engaging my congregants with moral and ethical dilemmas I too should

view my relationships and obligations to other ministry colleagues progressively. That is, if I am

pastor/elder I should be aware that I relate to lay volunteers, congregants, and deacons as co-

laborers in the gospel. However, it too is vital to view my relationships and obligations with

11 Hebrews 12:1112 It is important to note that each point neither stands alone, nor do the collectively guide pastors and their congregants. Guidance functions best within clarity and the Bible clearly affirm Christ’s headship over the body and under-shepherds lead the church by the Spirit in the wake of Christ’s ascension. 13 Joe Trull and James Carter, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 96.

cooperation. The gospel unifies the body under the headship of Christ but that does not dismiss

the unique differences between different parts of the body. Thus, what are we to do?

I would argue that we should strive for clarity in order to develop transparency and

accountability specifically, clarity along communicatory lines. Clear communication,

corresponding with action, builds bridges between ministry colleagues leading to trustworthy

relationships. Despite long standing efforts to affirm communication an unhealthy spirit of

competition may still linger amongst many co-laborers; negative competition communicates

under false pretenses, it is divisive and maligning. Therefore, as a defense mechanism and in

order to “self-protect” pastors fail to engage well with co-laborers. When competition is the

culprit, fear is not far away. Pastors can be quick to think that other local pastors are ‘gunning’

for their congregants and trying to usurp their community influence. Despite our thought life, we

ought to preach truth to ourselves and be compelled toward gospel unity insofar as it serves and

uplifts fellow ministers. I personally confronted tension to move toward unity amongst

colleagues when I submit my yearly ministry plans for review in our church’s leadership

evaluation time. Herein, there is a safe space to both clearly communicate my heart for unity

amongst our team as well as propose vision implementation changes. Communication cultivates

space to engage change with the tension of unhealthy competition.

3. Pastoral Ethics and the Community:

Pastors are brought under the other-oriented mandate initiated by the great commission.

Christ himself instituted an authoritative declaration to proclaim the liberating power of the

gospel to the nations, teaching people how to freely live in Christ.14 However, this does not

function apart from the love of God and love for others.15 Therefore, I would argue that

14 Matthew 28:18-2015 Matthew 22:38

proclaiming the liberating power of the gospel drives the pastor’s loving posture toward the

broader community.16 Furthermore, the authority of Christ’s command compels Christ-followers

to move beyond their community and into the world. Therefore, I would understand this as the

essence of the ‘prophets’ function in society namely, the proclamation of Jesus the Christ in

conjunction with gospel liberation. However, our Western, Enlightenment informed, and

individualistic social conception of Christ’s gospel align with the First Amendment’s separation

of church from state, which seemingly inculcates a secular aversion to pastoral authority in social

or ethical matters outside “the church.” Thus, the prophet who affirms God’s revealed truth to

the believing and unbelieving alike may easily be pigeonholed as irrelevant in social arenas.

Nonetheless, from a social lens, functioning as a prophet and priest involves - but is not limited

to - community service, political/civil engagement, and stout ethical behavior.17 Altogether

pastors are free to engage the broader community; but it requires the utmost ethical and scriptural

integrity. The community may desire pastoral involvement in their social/civil/political agendas,

but we must fiercely tie ourselves to God’s word and gospel in order to function therein.

4. Pastoral Ethics and Sexuality:

Pastors undergo socio-cultural evaluations across various moral and ethical categories,

but non as fierce as sexual fidelity, or the lack thereof. Moral, ethical, and sexual failures

generally occur across three ministerial characters; predators, wanderers, and romantics/lovers.

Each character is highlighted by unhealthy relationships with congregants wherein trust is

compromised and transgressions occur physically, emotionally, or spiritually.18 Therefore, in

order to avoid such pitfalls it is imperative to position oneself in an unobstructed space.

16 Galatians 5:6b17 Joe Trull and James Carter, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 160. 18 Joe Trull and James Carter, Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 168.

Practically speaking, that means establishing ethical codes and mechanisms to enforce such

codes legally, ethically, and personally. Furthermore, considering the general trajectory of

sexual, moral, and ethical infractions – from male to female – establishing concrete boundaries

for engaging congregants of the opposite sex is imperative. For example, when a male leader

meets with a female it should occur in a public space; however, if it is in an office, at least one

person should be notified, present, and moderately attentive during the duration of meeting. If

the meeting is counseling oriented it too would be fruitful to outline clear guidelines and goals

prior to submitting any formal counsel; thereby affording space to discern whether or not deferral

may serve the congregant more effectively than the pastor may be able. Additionally, inviting

one’s spouse into scheduling space affirms transparency in an otherwise isolated sphere.

Moreover, pastors, irrespective of their title, ought to have formal oversight at all times either

through an external board or via co-pastors; this guards the church organizationally, congregants

relationally, and pastors ethically. The second greatest commitment a human can make is the one

s/he makes with their spouse; therefore, my wife and I remember our covenant-bond as often as

our schedules allow as a means to affirm our bond and guard against the onslaught of the

enemies of our souls.19

5. Pastoral Ethical Principles:

The ethical principles that guide my life, relationships, and ministry are summed up via

Christ’s words imploring his followers to love their Lord and God with the entirety of their

being, and love their neighbors as themselves.20 Although Christ-followers are not bound to the

letter of the Law because of freedom in and through Christ’s redemptive work; God’s moral will

– elucidated via the Ten Commandments and exemplified by Jesus himself – still bears on

19 1 Corinthians 7:3-520 Matthew 22:37-40

guiding ethical principles. In turn, the rebar undergirding my ethical principles is the sovereignty

of God.21 That is, Christ as creator, sustainer, and Lord of all establishes the basis for my

renewed partnership with him,22 thereby compelling me toward stewardship of his divine grace.23

Therefore, God’s sovereignty encourages me to work and rest according to his standards;24

exercise familial headship exemplified by his headship;25 uphold the sanctity of life as it displays

God’s creative prowess uniquely amongst all creation;26 and love as he loved.27 Furthermore,

God’s sovereignty implores me to love my spouse with integrity in both speech and sexual

conduct alike.28 Despite my desire to incarnate these principles consistently I do not. More often

that I would care to admit I have opportunities to grow in the veracity and integrity of my

speech. That is, I communicated to my wife that I would be home immediately following a

ministry event ending at 9:00PM; however, a congregant engaged me in conversation, I neither

wanted to stifle the conversation nor arrive home late - thereby compromising my word - but

something gave way. To my dismay I arrived home late.

6. Pastoral Ethics and Legal Implications in Ministry Practice:

Assuming leadership in a local assembly manifests itself in tangible and intangible

manners alike; immediate responsibility for shepherding one’s congregants and declaring gospel

truths blur those distinctions; that is, one cannot dismiss the reality that ministering to people is

messy. In other words, scenarios are complex because people are complex; engaging people in

21 Exodus 20:322 Colossians 1:15-2023 Exodus 20: 4-624 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13; the manner of the compulsion is not one of debtors ethic, whereby I am trying to earn God’s favor by affirms ethical principles in my life that resemble biblically oriented ethical principles. Rather, it is out of obedience that I am compelled to think and acts in wars morally and practically consistent with the Bible’s teachings. 25 Exodus 20:12; Eph 6:1-426 Genesis 9:6-7, Psalm 139:13-16; Job 10:8-927 John 13:3428 Exodus 20:14, 16; Ephesians 4:15; James 1:19-21; 5:12

ministry requires intersecting communicative and relational spaces alike. Herein one must

consider the implications of overseeing messy people across diverse scenarios and various

spaces. That is, in addition to caring for the spiritual needs of one’s assembly, leaders also bear

legal responsibility for the function of the local assembly and its actions.29 Legality with ministry

is the natural extension of one’s local statues. That is, as an organization, churches are

responsible to operate within the governing criteria found within the domain of the law. Herein,

it is vital to establish “safeguards” to protect one’s assembly internally and externally.

Specifically, in an instance of sexual abuse occurring amongst congregants - either the assailant

or victim - each state possesses specific requirements detailing mandated reporting. Failure to

comply with state mandated reporting exposes both one’s congregation and individual leaders

alike to prosecution. Legal matters range from sexual issues to tax issues, whatever the scenario

it is incumbent upon the leader to appropriate risk management resources and knowledge

organizationally. This may be done systematically through training or church staff and leadership

and affirmed personally with an ethical code. Legal matters in ministry practice invite an

opportunity for increased self-awareness, they ought not be viewed as ministry impediments;

rather, we ought to leverage legal matters to engage our congregation and community well.

accomplish this is establish

7. Pastoral Ethics Practicalities in Ministry Practice:

Ministry practice can differ from one context to another, but generally speaking,

accomplishing goals in ministry requires finances. Tithe, offerings, and donations come into

churches recognized as charitable organizations or 501(c)(3)’s. Therefore, it is incumbent upon

church leaders to oversee financial or material donations with the interest of the gospel at heart

29 For the purposes of this section, the paper is not assuming any specific denominational or clerical ties. This section is framing legal responsibility generally.

and others in mind. Practically speaking, if finances are allocated for personal gain the

organization ceases to be a 501(c)(3); therefore, according to the Bible, wherein finances are

viewed according to stewardship principles,30 it is vital to assure that those who lead in the

church are stewarding resources well. Submitting to internal and external audits affirms financial

accountability as well as promotes confidence that resources are handled according to biblically

informed moral principles. Finances are but one facet the practicalities nested within ministry.

Therefore, one must consider how ethics informs the day-to-day ministerial functions. No

practical ministry facet is more pronounced than communication. Therefore, what does it look

like to communicate according to biblically informed moral principles? First, one must consider

that space. For the purposes of this paper let us consider preaching. Preaching is effectively the

proclamation of God’s word to both followers and skeptics alike; preaching engages the heart

and the mind thereby affecting people in the most intimate manner, their faith. Herein, preaching

must materialize with the utmost integrity; integrity in content and integrity in composition.

When integrity in preaching is compromised people are not simply misinformed about innocuous

content; rather, they are misinformed about the most critical information, information that

informs one’s eternal position before God.31

8. Pastoral Ethical Issues in Ministry Practice:

Ethical issues are as diverse as the people who posses ethical convictions. Although

despite their diversity they comprised within two broad sweeping categories: oneself and others.

Within these two categories pastors are challenged to uphold personal ethical codes as well as

compel others to embrace a biblically informed personal code. The challenge is real because sin

is real. Nevertheless, we who affirm Christ’s Lordship and identify with him, moreover those

30 Luke 16:1-12; 19:12-27; Romans 14:12; 1 Cor. 4:1-2

31 Romans 10:17

who aspire to leadership within Christ’s body, the church, are responsible to affirm biblical

ethics and morality. But, how does one accomplish this when there is freedom within the Bible

on certain matters? That is, it appears that there is not ethical mandate prohibiting masturbation;

so, some may say it is an effective means to abstain from premarital sex. The gray space here

must be met by robust biblical morality. What I mean by this is: uncertainty, like masturbation,

ought to be met by certainly. Take for example the gray space of masturbation; it does appear

that it can be done; that being said, the Bible is abundantly clear about covetousness,32 if one can

masturbate and not covet after another then it appears to be permissible. Furthermore, the Bible

is also clear about lust,33 and our posture toward it. Therefore, if one can masturbate and neither

lust nor covet then it appears they are permitted. The principle demonstrated here is that a robust

dialogue must occur within ethical gray space, the dialogue must be biblically based and morally

consistent. Irrespective of the ethical issue, biblical consistency – which observes the scope of

the biblical narrative and seeks to offer guidance accordingly – is require for those who would

ethical dilemmas.

III. Case Studies

The following section highlights various case studies wherein my ethical framework is unpacked

and applied to an assorted mix of scenarios ranging from abortion to business ethics.

1. The Unwanted Pregnancy (Summary 5.1)

The Bible is clear about God’s position on humanity’s intrinsic value within God’s

creative schema.34 Therefore, an unmarried person considering pregnancy termination ought to

count the cost corresponding to the unborn child’s personhood and implications nested therein.

32 Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5; Luke 12:15; Exodus 20:17

33 Colossians 3:5; Matthew 5:28; Galatians 5:16; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 1 John 2:16

34 Genesis 2:27-28, 31

Namely, the potential for emotional repercussions following termination, compounding

relational strain couched within pregnancy termination,35 as well as the value of motherhood.

One cannot dismiss the magnitude and broad sweeping implications of their professed faith in

Christ; that is, God is at work redeeming humanity despite our selfish sinful choices.36

Furthermore, Christ-followers position in Christ is altogether the most robust and compelling

argument available to affirm humanity’s intrinsic value, our future hope, and interest

reorientation.37

2. Counseling the Infertile Couple (Summary 6.1)

Infertility is a vast gray space for the twenty first century Christian. That is, there are

various corrective methods wherein a basic formula; namely medicine, finances, and personal

yearning combine to serve couples’ interests. Initially medicinal fertility intervention appears

morally and ethically viable;38 however, the moral ramifications nested therein often remain

hidden. That is, one must consider potential for selective pregnancy termination in light of

multiple-fertilization, and the destination of fertilized embryos. If an infertile couple strongly

desires parenthood via natural conception, then they cannot dismiss the potential for morally

compromising scenarios latent within procreation/reproduction alternatives. Altogether, the Bible

makes space for infertile couples to engage technology, but when one considers the implications

for using technology - the moral loose ends - in regard to God’s value for life and terminating the

35 Case Study 5.1 examines the interpersonal dynamic of two profession Christian young adults engaging in premarital sexual relations and conceiving a child. The parents are encouraging termination and I, as their pastor, am sought out in order to supply a biblical perspective on the matter. Furthermore, the parents are not Christ-followers thereby convoluting incoming counsel for the young lady.36 Romans 8:18-3037 John 1:12; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 6:6; 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Interest reorientation refers to how one’s identity in Christ draws their attention to Christ’s values and away from themselves.38 I would suggest three possible reproductive options all limited to their genetic material. First, IVF (in vitro fertilization) would pose a viable option; second, IUI (intrauterine insemination); and third, GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer). In this process I would encourage them not to fret over terms like procreation or reproduction; rather, I would direct their attention to potential moral ramifications following insemination

capacity for life held in embryos there ought to be pause. In light of these moral quagmires I

would affirm adoption’s biblical prominence leading to adoption as a viable option for an

infertile married heterosexual-couple.39 The Bible tells an amazing redemptive story for those

who are cast aside, orphaned, or isolated. This narrative engages those who are far off are

brought into a family knit together in faith, and bound by love. The truth is, in light of this

couples challenging position and years of trying to conceive, adoption is no simple task. More

so, counsel affirming that a child will fix one’s desire to bear children naturally is misguided and

misplaced. Thus, it is vital to have a heart for adoption, to invite one who is not your own to be

your own. Therefore, I would not counsel the couple to simply adopt. Rather, I would urge the

couple once again to consider the cost involved; furthermore, I would urge the couple to examine

their hearts and wait before the Lord.

3. Gender Selection for Family Balancing (Summary 7.1)

Technological advances in gene therapy, PDG (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis), and

gender selection advance unique scenarios for couples seeking compromised gene negation,40 or

gender selection. However, nested within the moral freedom granted within the domain of God’s

common grace are also ethical challenges linked to personal desire and post-fertilization embryo

management. Therefore, by way of engaging the gender selection technology, I would advise a

couple investigating gender selection for family balancing to count the cost involved monetarily

and morally; in other words, I would encourage the couple to strongly consider their personal

desire and desperation to have a son over and against their worldview, the value of both women

and men alike, and a God who maintains complete control over his creation.41 There is no

39 John 1:12; Ephesians 1:5; Galatians 3:26; 4:5-7; Romans 8:14-19; 9:8; 1 John 3:1-240 That is, if a couple has a hereditary disposition wherein lived experiences are limited according to culturally normalized standards – for example, an early on setting degenerative disease may inhibit one’s capacity to live apart from full-time assistance. Herein, couples may engage PDG in order to disposes the compromised gene. 41 Genesis 1:31; 1 Corinthians 7:17-28; Colossians 1:15-20

assurance that this couple maintains any regard for God’s revealed word, therefore it may be

unfruitful to appeal to scripture. Thus, in light of the moral perplexities nested within the gender

selection technologies, it is morally incongruent with biblical principles and values to pursue

gender selection for any purpose.

Moreover, I maintain that actively intervening in biological capacities may inhibit one’s

capability to know God more fully. That is, an undergirding emphasis of gender selection is

geared toward personal satisfaction and familial comfort.42 Striving to attain to our goals and

desires is not inherently evil and in fact the Lord commends his followers to commit their work

to him in order to have their plans established.43 Gender selection motivated by selfish ambition

does not fully roll over one’s work onto the Lord and therefore directly offends God’s

sovereignty. The Bible is plain that those who identify with Christ and profess faith in Christ

ought not be surprised when challenges come.44 The point here is not that bearing one gender or

another is God’s way of testing one’s faith through trials; rather, the point is God is the good gift

giver and children are counted amongst those good gifts.45 I personally could not counsel

someone to directly intervene in obstructing the good gift giver and his desire to bless with

whomever he saw fit, boy or girl.

4. Termination and Living Will (Summary 8.1)

Irrespective of one’s ideological or moral presuppositions terminating life is difficult

even in sanitized social spaces – like hospitals – death lingers. How then does the Christian

respond to termination requested in a living will? Effectively, removal, otherwise known as

42 Even though the ideal categories for family structure and gender preferences within one’s home carry culturally explicitly weight. Wherein cultural influences impress greater desires for one gender above another, in turn relegating family balancing to a culturally fluid state. 43 Proverbs 16:344 James, 1:2-4; 1 Peter 4:1245 Psalm 127:3 James 1:17

withdrawal, is ethically equitable to withholding; that is, there is no significant or real moral

difference between the two.46 Therefore, if I were to encounter potential termination in an

intimate relational space - based on the given information and the gestation of the terminal

illness predicted by the doctors - I think it is acceptable to remove or withhold a ventilator, even

if it means the individual facing death will die sooner. Furthermore, the chief matter nested

within this is not my personal conviction; rather it is the legality of the situation. Abortion may

be legal based on right to privacy and bodily integrity, but that does not justify it ethically or

morally. That is, if I am unwilling to withhold or withdrawal care based on quality of life and

advanced medical requests I should not accept the responsibility of making medical decisions on

an individual’s behalf. Additionally, submitting to the natural progression of terminal illness,

whether I like it or not, is not my choice or burden. Moreover, I do not believe that removing a

ventilator would cause me to be complicit in an individual’s death. The natural progression of a

terminal illness is death itself; therefore, I am not responsible for the death, the disease is.

Altogether, when it comes to a living will I do not see it as my prerogative to reorder the desires

expressed in the living will, if I do not agree to the desired actions; that is, I think they would

compromise any strongly held ethical values then I should, once again, not take of the

responsibility of overseeing the living will as its executer.

5. Capital Punishment (Summary 9.1)

If I were in a scenario where, as a juror, I were responsible in casting a vote for life in

prison or death for a convicted murder I would vote to sentence the convicted individual to life in

prison without the possibility for parole based on the sanctity of life and the value and integrity

of humanity’s personhood. The challenge nested within this is the freedom afforded by Genesis

46 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 220.

9:6. That is, humanity uniquely bears God’s image amongst all creation thereby warranting the

utmost value and sanctity for human life; although potential confusion within this paradigm still

exists. Namely, Genesis 9:6, leaves the punitive authority, prior to the Mosaic Law, to take a

man’s life open, thereby presenting a moral quagmire.47 The overarching redemptive narrative is

littered with death stemming from sin and even now death and murder exists. Yet, the weightier

challenge lay within Christ’s teachings on one’s heart; that is, external anger or hate harbors an

inner murderer.48 How then, when we cannot assess man’s heart, can we truly enact justice?

Modern judicial life-for-life rhetoric dismisses the tension between God’s desire for

redemption and restoration and divine justice. That is, a perfect and holy God forged a

contractual agreement that would affirm his place as protector and creator of his people Israel.

God’s covenant agreement set Israel apart from neighboring nations as well as by requiring

recourse in response to murder, bestiality,49 witchcraft,50 or offering sacrifices to false gods.51 All

of these actions were direct and personal affronts to God’s covenant agreement and defaced the

grounds of the contract. America is not in a unique covenant agreement with God the Father;

therefore, it appears correct to affirm the principle of life-for-life rhetoric, but a misapplication to

justify capital punishment in contemporary contexts on the basis of covenantal agreements

affirmed in the Mosaic Law. Altogether, two things are clear concerning the death penalty. First,

life is sacred because it reflects God’s unique manifestation in creation; and second, Christ-

followers are to submit to authorities placed in governance according to God’s sovereignty.52

Based on these two facets alone, which are limited in nature, the Bible allows for a gray space

47 Death does not warrant more death, unless death occurs at the hand of a guilty party; in this case reciprocity governs the altercation. Even though a solution for murder is offered it is not always enacted, case in point Cain. 48 1 John 3:1549 Exodus 22:1950 Ibid 22:1851 Ibid 22:2052 Romans 13:17

wherein one can both affirm the sanctity of life by dispatching life as well as affirm God’s

eternal justice by forbearing the death penalty.

6. Wrestling with Sexual Orientation (Summary 10.1)

Sexual imagery, language, and content are more rampantly accessible today than at any

other point in human history.53 Therefore it is vital to engage our world with biblically robust and

consistent answers to a hypersexual culture. One such instance is same-sex attraction and

homosexuality; in an instance where a biblically informed voice were needed I would share that I

think homosexuality - sexually engaging the same sex - is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.

It is inconsistent because it contradicts the Bible’s teaching concerning sex, marriage, and

creation. Generally speaking, the Bible talks about sex in two broad categories; first, sex that is

consistent with God’s design in creation – one man and one woman bound together by covenant;

and secondly, sexual acts that fall outside the natural familial domain. We see sex portrayed from

the beginning of the biblical narrative as one man and one woman.54 Shortly thereafter,

humankind sabotages its partnership with God the Father wherein sin enters the world defacing

God’s image reflected in humankind. The Bible is clear that sin catalyzes wickedness in human

hearts, dispossessing them of any affection for their creator; rather, because of sin’s unwelcome

influence, humanity chooses creation over creator and in turn exalts created things in their lives,

including them.55 This is our dilemma: sin. Moreover, the affects of sin blind us to God’s

goodness, even when God miraculously intervenes, drawing us unto himself we can still clearly

see the destructive tendencies of our sin laden choices working contrary to God’s desire for our

lives.56 Even in the wake of sins destructive force, God is greater because he has overcome the

53 This is not a verified fact; rather, this is merely an expressed opinion based on technological trends that freely places pornographic content and imagery into consumers hands. 54 Genesis 2:18-2555 Romans 1:24-1756 Galatians 5:17-21

world,57 having defeated sin, Satan, and death itself without ever succumbing to sin.58

Furthermore, as a point of encouragement, we ought to be reminded of the Bible’s fierce sexual

ethic. Wherein, one exercises restraint in singleness and where sex exists only in the context and

confines of marriage. Therefore, irrespective of gender, sex is made for personal enjoyment

within the safety of covenantal bounds, known as marriage.

Unfortunately it is not possible for individuals to be Christ-followers and homosexual at

the same time. However, a critical distinction must be made; namely, homoeroticism and

homosexuality are not one and the same.59 That is, one may maintain self-professed

homoeroticism and never submit themselves to their attraction. Herein, it is essential to flesh out

how one understands being “gay” or better yet, does being gay implicate one in homosexual

acts? If gayness is synonymous with homosexuality – a person who is both sexually attracted to

the same sex and engages sexually with the same sex60 – then it would be inconsistent for him to

profess Christ and live a sexually active lifestyle.

7. Iraq as Just War (Summary 11.1)

War presents itself as God initiated often in the biblical narrative, but one must examine

how war fits into biblically informed Christian ethic operating in contemporary contexts. For

example, it is good to question the justice of the recent Iraq War; which I would claim to be

distinctly unjust. That is, it failed to accomplish minimum standards asserted in both jus ad Bello

and jus in Bello alike. Moreover, the ability to affirm limited war –time objectives against a

seemingly illusive enemy, namely terrorism, were seemingly media apparitions.61 Furthermore,

57 John 16:3358 Hebrews 2:14; 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:24-2659 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 283.60 Ibid. 61 This statement is a reflection of anecdotal information disseminated via informal mechanisms; it id therefore not claiming any quantitative validity, rather it is asserting an observation in relationship to the Iraq war and its ability to

ambiguity surrounding “proportionate means” calls into question the invasive posture assumed

by the United States, ambiguities of aggression, and finite/immanent threats posed to

international communities. Lastly, jus in Bello was deeply obstructed by way of civilian and

infrastructure susceptibility. Therefore, in light of “just war’s” clarity –for cause, intention,

finality, and formal declarations – the Iraq war fails to constitute, on multiple fronts, a just war.

Wars – like the people fighting them – are complicated amalgams integrating complex ethical

scenarios, subjective motives, and varying ideologies. If by some act of common grace both

combatants espoused identical ethical framework while remaining resolute to engage one another

in war, than and only then would just war theory be applicable. In other words, I cannot picture a

conflict wherein humanity willingly defaces itself and label it as “just.”

8. Conflict of Conscious (Summary 12.3)

Identifying with Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension is not limited to Sunday

mornings temporally or Christian groups relationally. The Christian faith interacts with social,

cultural, and religious diversity consistently; in turn, it is incumbent upon Christian leaders to

interact with scenarios where our faith and the moral/ethical implications therein are stretched,

poked, and prodded. This is typified by in the work place, especially one wherein moral

compromising content is produced. What are we who profess Christ to do?

If I were a graphic artist in the video game market and I were asked to work on a game

that produces provocative material, despite my reservations, I would comply and work on the

game. However, based on my role in the game as a graphic artist, I would request to develop

non-explicit imagery. In other words, in light of my personal ethical code and freedom of

expression/speech, I would appeal to the content, my personal challenges therein, and my skills

engage threats in a limited capacity.

in rendering images as a graphic artist. Couched within this are two things: first, religious

protection under the Title VII of the Civil Rights, which affirms accommodation for religious

observance; second, by affirming my desire to utilize my skills and exercise the capacity of my

role as a graphic artist I am intrinsically eliminating any possibility of undue burden. Therefore,

by agreeing to employ my skills, in line with religious observance/practice, I am upholding my

personal ethics sexually as well as affirming the ethical principle of integrity and work.62

There are intrinsic benefits to working on a morally challenging project. Irrespective of

my role in graphic design, my presence on the team – specifically my presence as a Christ-

follower – creates ample opportunity to engage others. That is, I cannot assume my employer is

downplaying the capacity for sex to sell; that being said, if I isolate myself from all “un-

Christian” activity I would be in total isolation. Therefore, the logical extension into a

progressively post-Christian market place is not full engagement driven by enlightened self-

interest. Rather, engaging the market well, especially one that promotes sex and violence at

obscene levels, necessitates exorcising dual morality and with boldness engaging the people in

the market place.63

In other words, I would contend that the market and more specifically the video game

market is about the people; the people producing games and the people consuming games. I

cannot simply re-imagine and superimpose a new world over and against the fallen one we live

in. But I can only respond to the sin marred reality humanity finds itself in and the best response

is to engage this new team via graphic design. The benefit is gaining a platform - replete with

relational capacity – whereby I am able to engage people who are impacting and even producing

culture.

62 Colossians 3:23-2463 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 342.

Appendix 1: Bible Study

Paul in Colossians 3:1-17 implores the Colossian Christ-followers to consider the implications of

the place in-Christ as “ chosen ones, holy and beloved.” Paul goes further, encouraging these

same people to conduct their life know that Christ is their true master and he deals with us

accordingly.64

I. In light of our new life in Christ, how should Christ-followers posture their lives toward the

oppressed and the vulnerable?

II. Who are the oppressed and vulnerable? (Psalm 10:14; Psalm 140:12; Matthew 11:5; Luke

14:12-14)

III. What is the importance of Isaiah 61:1-2 if you identify with Christ? (Luke 16:21)

1. How does the Bible see the oppressed and vulnerable (Proverbs 14:31; 19:17; 29:7)

IV. How did Jesus model a Christian stance toward the oppressed and vulnerable? (Matthew

6:33ff; 25:31-46)

1. Why is it significant to us that Jesus identifies with the oppressed and vulnerable?

(Luke 6:20)

V. How does our care for the oppressed and vulnerable reflect God himself? (Matthew 5:42;

19:20ff; 28:18-20; Luke 16:29-25; John 2:12-17; 2 Cor. 8:9)

VI. How did the first Christ-followers identify with Christ in care for the oppressed and

vulnerable? (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37)

1. What evidence in your life resembles Christ’s posture toward the oppressed and

vulnerable?

64 Col. 4:1

VII: Practical Example: In western culture, specifically America, we live in a sanitized society

where the oppressed and vulnerable are segregated from the liberated and strong. Right?

Practically speaking I live in a low-income depressed region of Lansing, MI but I work on a

college campus. Therein lies a stark contrast, those who are rich are often oppressed and those

who are upscale are too vulnerable; however, not in a tangible/monetary sense but in a spiritual

one. There is one young man who grew up surrounded by sound biblical doctrine and ideals, he

himself served the oppressed and the vulnerable as youth, but now he has rejected the deity of

Christ and lives by utilitarian values. I sat down with my friend this week and pressed into moral

and spiritual dilemmas over lunch; so, in less tangible terms I appealed to my friend from a

deontological biblical perspective pertaining to sex, dating, and life in college. Therein, I believe

I practiced pursuing justice amongst the spiritually oppressed this week.

Appendix 2: The Seven Step Model

Step 1: Gather the Facts

Seek clarity in amidst the facts of the case in question in order to discern if this is

moral dilemma or not.

o Principle: Assure you’re not confusing a communication breakdown with and

ethical dilemma.

o Do not neglect the perspicuity of the Bible.

Ask two key questions:

o What do you know? & What do we need to know?

Step 2: Determine the Ethical Issues

Definition: Ethical issues are “conflicts between two or more value/virtue-driven

interests.”65 (Competing interests create ethical dilemmas.)

o Moral values/virtues are required to support the competing interests or this

case is not an ethical issue.

Challenge: Consider the challenge between compromised sexual

ethics, an unplanned pregnancy before marriage taking place between

a believer and an unbeliever.

Issues should be juxtaposed in an X vs. Y format in order to reflect the competing

interests with equity.66

65 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2009), 107.66 Ibid.

o The value of life (Gen. 9:5-6; Prov. 8:4-5)

Step 3: Determine What Virtues/Principles Have a Bearing on the Case

Apply an ascending and descending scale to the X and Y categories:

o Determine which principles ought to be weighted more heavily than others.

How does the Bible rank in the competing ethical quagmire?

o Where does this challenge fall in respect to Biblical values? (Matt. 22:36-40)

Step 4: List Alternatives

Alternatives offer potential solutions to an ethical dilemma;

o The longer the list the more option one has;

o The most options available equates to a better chance quelling the dispute.

Example:67 (1) Pursue marriage in order to preserve life and place unborn child in a

potentially stable marital environment; (2) Have the child and raise it as a single

mother; (3) Bear the child in an adoption scenario; (4) [competing ethical dilemma]

abort the child.

Step 5: Compare Alternatives with the Virtues/Principles (Steps 3 and 4 Interact)

Eliminate alternative solutions according to driving principles (appeal to Step 3).

Continue X and Y comparison to see is a solution is at hand:

o Aim to satisfy all relevant virtues

If a decision has yet to be made appeal to Step 4 – inherent value weightiness – to

provide more concrete comparison. (This should not be according to intuition.)68

Step 6: Consider the Consequences

67 Refer to Step 2. 68 Ibid, 108.

Consider the consequences if the principles did not provide a solution.

o Task: Consider the positive and negative aspects all remaining alternatives.

Assess the severity – count the costs – of each consequence.

Step 7: Make a Decision

There may be no easy choice, but deliberation cannot continue indefinitely.

Therefore: consider utilitarian motives; which option bears the least consequence?

o Do not be won by what will make you “sleep well at night” right decisions are

not always restful decisions.

Example: Life is valuable because it bears God’s image; therefore, the

child should be born. However, the birth mother’s station inhibits her

for caring for the basic needs of the child. The decision with the least

negative and most positive consequences would likely be birth to

adopt.

Bibliography:

Green, Joel B., Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Rebekah Miles, and Allen Verhey. Dictionary of Scripture

and Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2011

Henry, Carl F. H. Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1973.

Jones, David Clyde. Biblical Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1994.

McDonald, James I. H. Biblical Interpretation and Christian Ethics. Cambridge [England]:

Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Rae, Scott. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing Company, 2009.

Trull, Joe, and James Carter. Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders. 2nd ed.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.