Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: The Importance of Ethics and Ethical Approaches (Part 1)

Father, we thank you that you have brought us to this place and given us the opportunity to study your word again. We pray that as we come to the Scriptures, that we come as spirit led individuals, those who have their sights made proper by focusing on Jesus Christ, our King and the advance of his kingdom. We pray that as spiritual men who are serving the King, we might be led to understand what the Scriptures do teach us about our duties in this world. We pray that we'd be willing to follow out those duties, whatever the cost may be, that we'd even be willing to suffer for righteousness sake, whatever persecution you have ordained for us. We ask, Lord, that you would give us a true dedication to your will in this world. We ask, Father, that we'd be enabled to understand it properly and we'd be given the strength to follow it out in our lives. We ask that this course would accomplish those ends so that you might be glorified and Jesus Christ might be exalted among the nations. For we pray in his name. Amen. We're going to be studying over the next few hours the ethics of law, or what is sometimes called, what is sometimes called normative ethics. Normative ethics and ethics of duty. Another way of describing the subject matter of this course is to describe it as deontological ethics. And later on this morning we'll be getting into what deontological means and how it's been applied in the history of philosophy. But just a word or two before I get underway about the outline of this course, how we're going to be proceeding. I'm going to try as much as possible to parallel in these lecture hours the kind of approach that I've given already in our two former courses. Previously we've studied personal holiness or personalistic dispositional ethics. And I began there by talking about the importance of ethical study. Then we did an introduction to ethics. We went through various questions about what ethics would be, schools of ethics, that sort of thing, and concluded that series of remarks by pointing out how important it is to study personalistic or dispositional ethics. In our second course, we began the same way with some opening remarks about the importance of ethics, and then we looked at introductory remarks about ethics and concluded with the application that it's necessary that we study teleological or consequential ethics and ethics of situation and fact and goal. And this morning I want to begin and parallel what I've done previously by looking at the importance of ethics again and then repeating my introductory remarks on ethics, but this time with the goal of making application as to why it's necessary to study an ethics of duty. After this introductory lecture, then we'll begin our series of lectures on ethical apologetics, where we deal with philosophy of ethics from a deontological standpoint. And we'll do again a history of various philosophers who have taken the approach that is of interest to us in the course. In the past, it's been dispositional philosophers, personalistic philosophers, and then secondly in our other course, teleological and situational philosophers of ethics. And this time we're going to be looking at those who stress a philosophy, ethics that centers on duty, norm and standard. And so we'll first of all look at the history of philosophy, and then we'll look at problems that arise for Christians who take a deontological approach to ethics from an apologetical standpoint. We'll consider various attacks that are made on the faith or counters that are made by those who hear what our approach might be. And after that, we'll make a positive presentation of the biblical evidence in terms of norm. Here we'll be getting into the whole question of the law of God and its normativity for today. I'm going to take up some lectures later with those who have criticized what is called the theonomic approach to ethics in our day. And then I want to get into various and assorted issues pertaining to duty, the adiaphora issue, the use of the decalogue as the summary questions of that nature. So you get some idea, in a roundabout way anyway, where we're going. We're going to begin now, then, with the consideration of the importance of ethics and introduce our subject. And then in our remaining lectures Today we'll be dealing with ethical apologetics. The importance of ethics, as I'd like to present it in this course, begins with the character of God. There are obviously many things you can say about the character of God. Systematic theology textbooks abound with characterizations of God. But this morning I'm going to be looking very briefly, just at four characteristics. The character of God as the Creator, the character of God as the Lord, the character of God as the King, and then finally, the character of God as judge. If we understand who God is, we have to, as Christians, be interested in ethics. Ethics is an unavoidable subject for a Christian who is thinking through his convictions and his beliefs. In the first place, the Christian confesses that God is the Creator. In Romans the second chapter, we see associated with this function of God as creator, the expression of God's own character in terms of laws that are known naturally by man. Romans 2:14, 15. Well known passage that says, for when Gentiles that have not the law and I take that have not the written expression of the law, when these Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these not having the law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing, or else excusing them. This of course builds, and it seems to me, is a further elaboration of what Paul's getting at in Romans the first chapter, when he says that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hinder the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is manifest in them for God manifested it unto them for the invisible things of him, since the creation of the world are clearly seen being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse, because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Paul concludes that chapter indicting the pagan world for knowing God, knowing the invisible things of God, knowing the ethical character of God, knowing what God requires by way of the worship of man's life, and how he should give thanks to God. Paul concludes that the degeneracy of the Roman world is seen in verse 32, that those who know the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them. Paul has made it very clear that God from heaven, through nature, through conscience, has made known his invisible attributes, his ethical character, and that the knowledge of that ethical character leaves me without excuse for the way they conduct their lives. Then chapter two makes it even clearer what he's getting at. That character of God can be called the law. God has expressed his character through the law, and men are guilty for not keeping that law, even though they haven't been given a written revelation of the law. They know what God requires of them, because they know God. And so it's rather clear from these two chapters that if we know God in the character of Creator, we must know him as one who has stipulations for life, behavior, attitude, and all the rest. Secondly, the Christian knows God in the character of the Lord Jesus in Luke 6:46 shows us at least partially, the implications or an implication of what it means to be the Lord. Luke 6:46. Jesus says, and why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? That's a very pregnant rhetorical question. A lot is compacted into it. We understand that to be the Lord means to be in a position where you have the prerogative to give orders and to expect those orders to be kept. Jesus is indicting his hearers by saying, you give me the title, but you don't give me the respect that goes with it. You call me Lord, but then you don't do what I say. Well, now, if we are Christians, we not only know God as creator, and therefore must know his character, and his character comes to us in terms of ethical stipulations. But we know him as the Lord as well, and the Lord is the prerogative to give orders and then expect them to be kept. Christians also know God. We know Jesus Christ the Savior as King. We know the Lord. We know God as Creator, Lord and King. In Matthew 28, well known great commission, Jesus at verse 18 comes and speaks unto his disciples. He says, all authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Jesus is now going to be enthroned as king over all of creation. All authority is His. It isn't just in the heavenlies, while things go on on earth in some debauched way until he returns. It isn't just on earth as though he's just one more potentate among men. But all authority in heaven and on earth over all creation and all walks of life, is His. All authority is his. And on that basis he says, therefore, having gone, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It's interesting that Jesus doesn't simply ask that we gain converts for him and then operate in the Church in terms of the sacraments baptizing people. He says that we must engage in Christian nurture as well. And Christian nurture here, under the guidance of the King, means teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And then the concluding promise, of course, is that because he is with us to the end of the age, we can be confident this work will be done and that successfully as the King Jesus expects compliance with his commandments. And then we know God, at least in one other way, and that as the judge, especially the coming judge. In Second Corinthians 5:10, Paul expresses what is a common plot in New Testament eschatology about the last day, the day of judgment, 2nd Corinthians 5:10. For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad. Paul says, we're all going to receive back the appropriate response from God for the things we've done with our bodies and in our bodies. God will be a judge, and he will judge us according to what we have done, being good or bad. Clearly, as the judge, God has norms by which he evaluates our behavior. He has norms that will be applied to us so that we'll know what the proper recompense should be for the quality of our lives and the specific actions that we've engaged in. How important is ethics then? If you just stop and think about the character of God. God is the Creator and as such reveals his holy character and stipulations that all men know, whether he's written it down for them or not. God is the Lord, and as the Lord he has orders that he expects to be kept. God is the King and He expects us to teach compliance with his commandments. And God is the judge, the coming judge who has norms for evaluation of our lives, everything in our lives. The very character of God therefore shows us the need for a normative ethic, an ethic of norm or law that gives pre established standards by which God will evaluate us, which we are to carry into the world, seeing to it that these commandments are complied with. These are orders for us to keep as well. They are the very things that our Creator would require of us. Secondly, the Bible not only shows us the character of God, it shows us the character of genuine Christian living. When in Hebrews 5:9 we learn that Jesus became the author of salvation unto all those who obey him, who obey him. In James 1:22 the author of that passage tells us that we are not to be only hearers of the Word, merely hearers of the Word. We are to be doers of the Word as well. And James chapter two shows us what the doing of the Word requires. Doing the Word means that we engage in visible good works toward others, those who are truly saved. Then those who know the Savior are going to obey the Savior by doing the Word of God as it comes to expression. Invisible works. And again we see then the importance of normative ethics if we genuinely are followers of the Savior. Indeed, and this is my third point under the importance of normative ethics, Christians are distinguished by the fact that they know God's norms and keep them. In Romans 12:2 for instance, which we looked at before in terms of the transformation necessary in our personal lives, Paul says in Romans 12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice wholly acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service and be not fashioned according to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove and I take that to mean approve and practice that you may approve and practice what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God. Christians are those who know the will of God and approve of it in practice. Indeed, Romans 8:4 has already taught in this epistle that those who have the Holy Spirit living within them, which brings about this transformation of mind. The passage tells us that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, the sinful nature, but after the Spirit. So Christians fulfill the ordinance of the law and approve the will of God. The Book of Revelation those who decide to follow the Lamb and to make war with the beast are given particularly distinguishing definition, something that sets them off from all the rest of the world. Revelation 12:17 and the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed and the dragons making war with the seed of the woman who are the seed of the woman, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. Chapter 14, verse 12 repeats that here is the patience of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. And so it's a distinguishing mark of the Christian that the Christian knows God's norms, God's will, God's ordinances, God's law, God's commandments and keeps them normative. Ethics is unavoidable for the Christian because of the character of God. God's very character bespeaks norms, pre established standards of right and wrong. To be saved means to obey the Savior and do the word of God, so that visible good works are evident in our lives. Thirdly, Christians are distinguished by the fact that they know God's norms and keep them. And then the fourth point I want to make this morning, just showing the importance of what we're going to be studying in this course is the necessity of having distinct standards by which to live. It isn't enough simply to have any particular law. I sometimes hear people talk about 1 John 3:4 where John defines sin as lawlessness. People say that doesn't mean the well known law of God, for instance, of the Old Testament. That just means living without any standards whatsoever. Sin is lawlessness doesn't mean without the law, just means without any law indiscriminately. But it is virtually impossible that John could have had that kind of a thought in light of his Jewish upbringing. In the context of special revelation in the old testament, Leviticus 18:9, it was clear that the Israelites were not obeying God if they had just any law. Indeed, the Israelites were guilty if they had a law that was contrary to the law of God. The only law they could have was the law of God. Leviticus 18, verse 9 is one of many indications of that in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 18:9. I'm sorry, I believe that. I mean Deuteronomy 18:9. Yes, when thou art come into the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of these nations. Sin isn't just lawlessness in general. Sin is having another law contrary to the law of God, learning to do after the pattern of the lifestyle of the people around you, those who are unbelievers around you, the unregenerate around you. That's why in Romans 12, those who approve of the will of God are those who are transformed by the renewing of their minds and are not conformed to the ways of the world. In Second Corinthians 6, verses 16 to 18, Paul gives new Testament expression to the same idea of having a separate ethic, a different kind of norm or standard to follow when he says, Second Corinthians 6:16 and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For we are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. On the basis of that covenantal promise, he says, therefore come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be to you, O Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Because God is our God, because He indwells us, because he keeps covenant with us, we have to come out from those who are unclean. We must be separate from the world. It isn't enough, therefore, that we study any norms or have just any standards in ethics. We have to have distinct standards, the standards that God would lay down for his people to keep. In Acts 5:29, again a well known passage, but the implication that I want to draw from it today is that we have to have an ethic that is distinct from what is presented in the world. Acts 5:29. Peter has just been commanded not to preach the gospel. And he says, and the apostles answer with him, we must obey God rather than men. The norms that men lay down, the rules and regulations that they lay down, may not necessarily please the Lord. In fact, in the book of Colossians, we read God's condemnation of will worship, the following of regulations laid down by men without any sanction from God. And so it is not enough that we simply have norms in general. We must have distinct standards by which to live. And that, just in one more way, points to the crucial character of this class. The question is, that is asking by way of a leading question, I take, that would rule out the conservative idea of a rule of law. A great deal, of course, rides on how that phrase is being used and to what end it's being put. If somebody suggests to me that even if it's not God's law, it's better for a society to have some laws rather than to be in a chaotic state, you know, I have some sympathy for what they're saying, although I think that you can counter with other forms of argumentation. Say, you know, in some cases the rule of law is so oppressive and tyrannical, it'd be better to have every man for himself than to have to live under the yoke of some person like IDI Amin or Hitler, for instance. But the rule of law, as it's spoken of in general terms in ethics and in political theory, simply means that there is going to be some enforced uniformity in a society, irregular patterns of behavior that can be expected and that allows them for rational planning. In a society, you know, what sorts of things, for the most part, can be expected from your neighbors, what the police are going to enforce. And I would rule out in terms of this remark then, a general rule of law. Christians are not interested in law. They're interested in law as a reflection of the Creator's character. Law as it reflects the orders of the Lord, the commandments of the King, the evaluative norms of the judge that we all have to deal with one more time, then we're going to study normative ethics, because the Bible shows us the character of God. God has norms, stipulations, orders that he expects us to keep. It's necessary if we are saved, to show that saved salvation by doing visible good works. Indeed, Christians are distinguished by knowing the will of God, the ordinance of the law, the commandments of God keeping them. And that law is A distinct standard for the Christian one that sets him apart from the world, so that he is now holy, like God himself is holy, separate. If ethics is that important, then it seems to me me that there's some justification for rehearsing what ethics is. And I'm not going to take the time that I did in our first course to go over all the details of my introductory remarks. The last time I was with you for our second course, I gave just a brief rehearsal of those notes. And that's basically what I want to do here. And then I want to conclude that the very nature of ethical study calls for a focus on the normative or standard. Excuse me, the normative perspective or the standard of Christian ethics. Okay, so by way of introduction to ethics itself, now let's consider the historical context of the class that we are having on ethics. We begin by looking at the ancient Greek polis very briefly. And see in the New Testament itself, there was ethical conflict between the beast, revelation, who wanted his name, which is to say his number, and therefore his character in law imprinted on the forehead and the hand of men. Whereas the law of God in the Old Testament said that God's commandments, and therefore God's name and character were to be written upon the forehead and the hand of individuals. Those who resist the beast, therefore in Revelation are said to be those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. They do not allow the state to substitute its law for God's law. Indeed, Paul viewed the powers that be as ministers of God who owed their rule to the resurrected Messiah, the powers that be. In the Greek there is exousiae. When Jesus in the Great Commission says that all authority in heaven and earth is his, he uses the same same word, exousia in the singular. There he is the one who has all exousia, and therefore all the exousiae, the powers that be, the authorities must obey the one who has all such authority, Jesus Christ himself. That's why the early Church, when it formulated its creedal statements, as Mr. Rush Juni points out, when the early church formulated its creedal statements about the person of Christ, it simultaneously was challenging and reformulating civil law as rooted in the secular authority of a divinized state. When the Church defined the character of Christ, since the state had been divinized over against that divination of the state, Jesus Christ was receiving all the glory, power and authority. And that's why to be a Christian in the early days, very clearly, people knew to be a Christian in those days meant taking on a political stance. Medieval ethics, however, in the development of canon law, tended to divorce Scripture. And the word of Jesus Christ, made explicit and clear in the Scriptures, tended to divorce that scriptural word from the exercise of natural morality, and especially social and political morality. And this was facilitated by the dichotomy of nature and grace as it comes to very clear expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. There's a difference between revealed law and natural law. Revealed law is what we find in the Bible and that governs religious matters, matters of grace. However, all men know the natural law that can be found in creation and can autonomously, on the basis of their own research and philosophical reasoning, derive the standards by which our society should be governed. So medieval ethics then divorces scripture from ethics and law. Now this in turn is challenged by the Protestant Reformation. Clearly, this history that I'm giving you, from early Greece through the medieval Church, now to the Reformation, is a very selective recounting. I don't pretend that these are the dominant themes or the central themes, or even the organizing themes for history, but nevertheless, they are very important themes. And the strand, I think, is evident to anybody who studies history. The Reformation now challenges the medieval divorce of Scripture from law and returns to the New Testament idea of the law being based upon the revealed word of God. And for that reason, just as the early Church challenged the powers that be and reformulated civil law, so the Reformation reformulated civil law. That's a telling mark. It seems to me, the step down from the Reformation that we've seen, and when we get to the 18th and 19th centuries and Pietism and then liberalism come into the Christian Church, that there is a real blunting of the sociopolitical effects of being a Christian. And so that in the 20th century, Christians have to make grand apologies for the fact that they're interested in affairs of this world from a Christian standpoint. Well, anyway, at the time of the Reformation, it wasn't that way, just because of the Reformation's distinct view of the law. The Reformation was interested in applying the law to all areas of life. Calvin held to the validity of God's law, even over the state. All ethics had to be theological ethics. According to Calvin, even the socio political ethic had to be based on a theological stance. According to Zwingli, the law of God leads to repentance and shows the Christian the way of righteousness in this world. And righteousness pervades all areas of life. And thus we would say that a theocratic ideal was affirmed at the time of the Reformation. There may been different ideas of what a Christian state would be like and how the theocracy would come to be expressed. There were certainly different ideas as to the degree of discontinuity between the days of the Reformers and the days of the Old Testament Jew. But nevertheless, in one way or another, the vast majority of Reformers held to a theocratic ideal. You can even see that in some of the Anabaptist movements. Although Anabaptism in our day is probably best known as standing over against the theocratic ideal, at the time of the Reformation it was different. Law was indispensable to a covenant relationship with God and the covenant. The idea of the covenant was rediscovered and appreciated at the time of the Reformation, and consequently the law of God was reappreciated at the time of the Reformation. As we move on from the days, the early days of the Reformation into early British thought, we come to Bishop Butler, an Arminian, by theological commitment, a person who epitomized the Arminian ethic of refusing to begin with Scripture in one's ethic and believing that a natural morality could be developed on the basis that of conscience, the autonomy of man's conscience. Ethics can be separated from theology and then supplemented by theology after we've seen and when we get to the 18th and 19th centuries and Pietism and then liberalism come into the Christian church, that there is a real blunting of the sociopolitical effects of being a Christian. And so that in the 20th century, Christians have to make grand apologies for the fact that they are interested in affairs of this world from a Christian standpoint. Well, anyway, at the time of the Reformation it wasn't that way. Just because of the Reformation's distinct view of the law. The Reformation was interested in applying the law to all areas of life. Calvin held to the validity of God's law even over the stake. All ethics had to be theological ethics. According to Calvin, even the socio political ethic had to be based on a theological stance. According to Zwingli, the law of God leads to repentance and shows the Christian the way of righteousness in this world. And righteousness pervades all areas of life. And thus we would say that a theocratic ideal was affirmed at the time of the Reformation. There may been different ideas of what a Christian state would be like and how the theocracy would come to be expressed. There were certainly different ideas as to the degree of discontinuity between the days of the Reformers and the days of the Old Testament Jew. But nevertheless, in one way or Another, the vast majority of reformers held to a theocratic ideal. Did you can even see that in some of the Anabaptist movements. Although Anabaptism in our day is probably best known as standing over against the theocratic ideal, at the time of the Reformation it was different. Law was indispensable to a covenant relationship with God and the covenant. The idea of the covenant was rediscovered and appreciated at the time of the Reformation, and consequently the law of God was re appreciated at the time of the Reformation. As we move on from the days, the early days of the Reformation into early British thought, we come to Bishop Butler, an Arminian by theological commitment, a person who epitomized the Arminian ethic of refusing to begin with Scripture in one's ethic and believing that a natural morality could be developed on the basis of conscience, the autonomy of man's conscience. Ethics can be separated from theology and then supplemented by theology after we've developed the basic premises of our ethic through an examination of conscience. Christianity, it's no surprise. And Butler's apologetic therefore becomes a republication of natural religion, because religion and ethics are all made possible on the basis of natural reason. And then revealed ethics and revealed theology are supplemental and engage in a republication of what reason can find out on its own. The difficulty, of course, is that when Hume came along, he undermined the empirical foundations of Butler, devastated them completely. Hume destroyed Butler's empiricism, and then Kant comes along and destroys the autonomous ethic, even of Hume. Hume, Kant posited two basic realms, as you'll all remember. The realm of mechanical fact, that realm that we know by our senses today, the phenomenal realm that is the result of imposing man's a priori categories on the flux and chaos of his sensation. There is all this booming, buzzing confusion out here in the world. But because our mind operates as something of an organizing device, when that confusion comes in through our senses, the mind recategorizes everything and sets things in order for us. Now, that has two effects. First of all, it makes science possible. Man's mind will guarantee the validity of science. Everything must come to us in causal categories. But just for that reason, there can't be, in this phenomenal world that is controlled by causal categories, mechanistic categories, there can't be any religion or ethic. And although that seems to destroy religion and ethic, Kant felt, and I think he was sincere in this, that he was saving religion, because what he did is he took religion out of the hands of the scientists. Now the scientists and the natural philosophers couldn't get their hands on it, they couldn't touch it. It was in a completely separate realm, a realm that was beyond the categories of logic and causation and evaluation by human reason. Of course, it was a non cognitive realm. It was a realm of emotion and feeling and intuition. But nevertheless, he felt that he had saved ethics and saved theology in this way. Indeed, in Kantian thought, theology is reduced to ethics. Theology is just that matter of living our life in the proper way, treating other people as ends in themselves rather than means to end. And then theology is brought into the picture as kind of an enforcer of morality. We must believe there's a God and believe there's a coming day of judgment in order that we'll be motivated to follow our duties. And so theology is the guarantee, or if you will, the underwriter for ethics. Liberal theology in the 19th century, the persons of Schleiermacher ritual and then Harnack at the turn of the century into the 20th century, liberal theology follows suit. Obviously, Kant is the great apologist for liberalism. Kant has given us what amounts to an ethical religion without having to worry about the higher critical assaults on the Bible. Modernism is characterized by a predominant focus on moralistic thought. Religion becomes morality for the modernist. But the early 20th century developments in theology bring us neo orthodoxy and a return to theology, a repudiation of that exclusivistic ethical focus of liberalism. Barth and Bruner want a God who speaks, of course, not speaks in an evangelical and conservative understanding of that. But they want a God who reveals himself, a God who gives us theology, so that we know who we are, we know our need of grace, we know that we stand before a holy God instead of simply a religion or a theology that directs our life so that we respect the brotherhood of all men. For instance, Barton Bruner had some things to say in Ethics, but those things that they said were general and vague. In fact, apart from what Barth said about the Nazi regime, there seemed to be very little concrete application of the neo orthodox ethic. Thus they at the Lord, as I say in my book, Theonomy and Christian Ethics, was replaced by, it seems to me, nothing very specific is said. In fact, when somebody like Niebuhr did begin to engage in casuistry, he was immediately suspected of being a closet liberal, because anybody who had that much interest in ethics obviously is not interested in the theology of the word and encounter with God. However, in the 1960s, ethics, as we all know, comes thundering back into prominence because of the incredible developments in our society so often that way, isn't it? And as theologians are developing, as we say, their ivory tower theologies and all their grand schemes and aesthetic devices and everything else. But when all is said and done, the pressures of the world finally impinge on the church, and it's got to sit up and take notice. In the 60s, we have the development of situation ethics that stimulates many publications and articles because of the issues such as civil rights, sexual ethics, poverty, medicine, the war, and a great deal of number of other things. In the 1970s, the problem became the implementation of that consensus. Ethical principles were not so much debated and determined any longer, but the focus was on orthopraxy, the theology of revolution. How we should now start doing what situation ethics was telling us. In the 1960s, there was an abandoning of moral reasoning and discussion for a consideration of action. Now all this has happened around us. What do the orthodox have to say? What do those who are conservative have to say about this development of ethics all the way from Greece down to our own day? And I realize I've given it to you in very broad strokes, high level of generalization, but I think there's some accuracy in this, and it's helpful to see it in this light. Well, over the last 150 years, orthodox theologies come under, it seems to me, a kind of yes and no kind of attack, a yin and yang. We seem to be hit by trucks going opposite ways on the same street. In the first sense, we are scorned for having too many principles. After all, we are shackling people with legalistic concern for all these scriptural details. So on the one hand, we're told we need to ease up, we need to back away from all these details. Minute concern with precision and detailed understanding of the stipulations of God. We have to have fewer principles. We need to simplify our approach. We just need love or the guidance of the Spirit, something like that, so that we aren't legalistic. But on the other hand, if you look at the world, the world scorns the orthodox for not having enough principles. The world says, well, that's great. You talk about how you're supposed to take communion, or how you're supposed to relate to each other as Christians, or what they were supposed to do back when they had goring oxen and flat roofs. But what do we do today? What do we say about genetic engineering and homosexual rights and. And about abortion and about women's liberation? And how do we handle all these modern problems? The world tells us we don't have nearly enough principles. We're just irrelevant to the present situation because we're trying to gain a modern morality from a very old book. So inside the church we're being told by some people in a very suicidal way. I believe we have too many details. And outside the church we go out with our very few details about love and being guided by the Spirit. And the world tells us, yeah, but what does that tell you in terms of all these concrete problems that we're having to face? I think it's a proper assessment of our situation historically today that orthodox people are relatively confused about ethics, relatively confused. They get battered every which way. They don't want to be legalistic. On the other hand, they don't want to be irrelevant. They don't want to give up the central verities of redemption, and yet they don't want to be pietistic. They don't want the social gospel being charged against them, but they don't want world retreat charged against them. They don't want to give up the law because then they become antinomians. But then, of course, they don't want to affirm the law because then they become legalists. And there's a great deal of confusion about us today. And I would say that totally apart from what anybody thinks about the distinctive thesis that I would present or others like me in terms of the law of God, I just think there's a lot of confusion in the evangelical church. Confusion about just exactly how biblical truth ties into our current situation and problems. So our mandate, it seems to me, is to push Christian people back into the Scriptures and show them that the Word of God really does provide concrete, sufficient guidance and instruction for a complex age in which we live. We need to show people how to apply the unchanging word of God. And in some measure, that's going to be the aim of this course. In the midst of the historical context in which we live and the development from the early days of the church down to our own day, we're going to be studying the unchanging Word of God and its application to our ethical problems. I've said before, and we'll repeat here now briefly, that as we study morality that will presuppose a certain level of maturity. Because moral philosophy arises when we pass beyond the stage in which we are directed by traditional rules, and even beyond the stage in which those rules are so internalized that we can be said to be inner directed, we pass beyond those stages to the stage in which we Think for ourselves in a critical and in a general way. We become responsible moral agents engaging in mature reflection and principled action, action based on principles. And since we're interested in principled action, there are going to be certain pitfalls in reasoning that we want to avoid. Not only in making application of our ethical principles to situations around us, but even in the development of our ethical principles. There are pitfalls in moral reasoning we want to avoid. And I have in the past summarized these into seven. You can kind of cut the cake any number of ways, I imagine. But the way that I've outlined it deals with the pitfall of traditionalism. First of all, accepting rules or ethical outlooks and leaving them just at that, accepting what a trusted teacher has to say, or what your parents taught you, or what the culture around you is saying. Traditionalism is at best a descriptive ethic, however, describing the social mores of a people or a subject of people. Traditionalism is a pitfall in moral reasoning. And just as an aside, I might add that for all of its obvious unacceptability in Christian ethics, when you lay it out very clearly, that is, when you label it as traditionalism and make its true character known, the fact is that even in the most orthodox circles, traditionalism is widely endorsed in practice. Recently I was in a presbytery debate in which we were told that the history of the Church doesn't determine what position we take on an issue. And then when I argued against the favored position of the committee bringing a theological report, I was told that what I was presenting was novel and that the history of the Church didn't stand behind that. So you see, we can, even after professing a rejection of traditionalism, nevertheless fall into it as a pit. Secondly, there's a pitfall of unteachability, showing arrogance, forgetting the fallibility even of our own minds not being willing to be instructed and corrected. Thirdly, complacent arbitrariness, saying I can believe whatever I want to and I don't have any obligation to justify my opinions. Or fourthly, mere emotional appeals as we're trying to justify our opinions. Emotional appeals, of course, are double edged. Even as I can appeal to you to accept some premise on an emotional basis, a contrary motion can be used by one of my opponents to appeal to you not to accept it. Fifthly, narrowness and inconsistency, failing to see the universal application of our ethical principles. Believing, for instance, that our children should look out for the welfare of their on the street when they're playing, but then pretending that because I work for a large corporation. I don't have to look out for the welfare of my workers. Narrowness and inconsistency in the application of our principles. Sixthly, rationalization is a pitfall in reasoning. Rationalization is essentially searching for evidence after coming to a preconceived conclusion. We know what we want to say in the end, we know where we want to arrive. And now we're just going to go about finding the evidential steps leading from that point to the next. Finally, pitfall that I describe is qualifying your premises to the point of tautology. Sometimes you can take an ethical position, and then it comes under immediate attack. And then what you do is you modify your principle. You qualify in an ad hoc way to account for the criticism that's been brought up. But then you see a second criticism is brought up, and you do further qualification, ad hoc modification of your premise. So you can answer that. But then another criticism comes up, and what you do is you find out that you're qualifying. And qualifying to the point that your ethical principle means nothing whatsoever, indicates you should have thought it out much better in advance. There are other pitfalls, undoubtedly, that could be mentioned, but these seven I run into all the time when I'm teaching ethics or discussing with people. And these are things I want to hold up as red flags at the very beginning to warn us off, if at all possible, from falling into the pit. What is ethics? Well, first of all, let's talk about the interest of ethics. Ethics is interested in bringing our implicit and unspoken code of behavior into the open in order that it might be scrutinized. The thinking which we seek to do about ethical problems and judgments, therefore, must be analytical, seeking to be consistent and well grounded rather than haphazard and thoughtless. We want to scrutinize our implicit codes of behavior. Ethics is interested in the discovery of right and wrong, interested in obligation, but it's also interested in the production of further proper living. It wants to show us the way, and it wants to as well lead us to walk in the proper way, to walk in the paths of righteousness, if you will. As I've explained in the past and will only remind you here in passing, a conceptual understanding of what is right in itself requires a certain kind of behavior. So that when a person says, I know how to relate to this economic issue, or this interpersonal issue, or this issue of life and death, and then doesn't do it, there's a real question whether he genuinely understands in the first place whether conceptually this person is clear about the truth of ethics when his life doesn't conform to it. And conversely, there's a real question as to whether a person is living his life in a holy way if his conceptions about ethics are confused or unbiblical. As well, life and theology are mutually implicatory. They work on one another. Ethics in terms of its distinctives. Now, next point in my rehearsal of introductory matters, Ethics is prescriptive in interest rather than descriptive. It isn't a historical concern, just asking what people do or say. But it's prescriptive, says what we ought to do or say. Ethics has a social side to it as well as an individualistic side to it. That is to say, the individual can't do just whatever he thinks. Ethics has a social character in that it's universal, it imposes conformity on people. And on the other hand, ethics isn't social in the pure sense, because the individual has the right, given ethical norms revealed by God, to criticize his society. And so morality has an individualistic aspect as well, calling for the individual to question his culture and to question his society. Even as ethics allows for his society, moral norms allow the society to impose uniformity on individual variation so there isn't chaos and a general condition of crime about us. Well, as this introduction to the aim and distinctives of ethics, we can define ethics finally as bringing God's word to bear upon men so as to deepen their covenantal relationship with him by answering questions of the form. What does the whole Bible say to me about X as a means of determining what persons, acts and attitudes receive God's blessing through obedience and which ones issue in judgment through disobedience? Ethics, very simply, is systematic theology viewed as a means of determining what is blessed and cursed by God. We look at the whole Bible and say, what does it say to me about, say, abortion, or about woman's liberation, or whatever issue is before us? As Mr. Frame points out in his syllabus, to define ethics in that way, to have that conception of ethics, is simply to carry out the commitment that doctrine is always already applicatory. By its very nature, doctrine must be a matter of applying God's Word and not simply knowing God's word. I've defined various kinds of value for you in the past. I've distinguished for you the words right, good, good and ought. These are very important distinctions for the present course. Something is right when it's permissible, something is good when it's morally evaluated in a favorable light, and something is said to be what we ought to do when it's obligatory on us. So the distinction between right and ought is one that you'll want to keep in mind. It may be right to give money to the Red Cross. Permissible, but it is not necessarily obligatory to give money to the Red Cross. So I can say it's right without saying that you ought to do it. We've distinguished also between ethical, moral, immoral and amoral in our discussions, and that too will be pertinent to our present course. In normative ethics, ethical and moral are basically synonymous. But they aren't always used in an evaluating way. Sometimes they're used simply in a categorizing way to say that this moral matter, this question, is part of ethical interest, but it may not necessarily be good. Pornography is an ethical issue, but that doesn't mean that it's ethical or that it's moral. It may be immoral in its character, even though it's categorized as a moral question. Amoral doesn't mean without interest in morality. That would be non moral. Amoral means without moral standards and therefore is pervasively immoral. And when we come back after a short break, I'd like to review our words about normative and metaethics and their relationship and talk about the style of ethical reasoning. Review the schools of metaethics and our three perspectives on ethics, and then conclude that we have to study normative ethics if we understand what ethics is according to these remarks. Thank you.