Course Reflection - Pastoral and Social Ethics

The wonderful part about taking a John Frame class is how easily the material from his other classes blends together the content into a cohesive whole.  This class in particular has been thought provoking from the standpoint of applying his tri-perspectival point of view to living out life and dealing with real world situations.  There are many ethical dilemmas that face the world, and this class is one that will provide a great foundation for dealing with those issues form a biblical perspective.  The most challenging of which for our culture can be how to apply the 10 commandments, but Frame helped to draw out both the narrow and broad applications of each.  This reminded me of the importance of God’s law specifically the normative perspective while it also illuminated the existential applications for me as a person and the situational perspectives implications on the world.  This is an essential class for anyone who is seriously tackling ethical issues presented today from a biblical perspective. 

Daily Worship – The Christian Existential Ethic in the Presence of God

Assignment:
For a topic, you may choose anything in the field of ethics. See the lecture outline, study guide, supplementary documents, and the list of topics above under “General Plan” for suggestions. You may write about an ethical philosopher or theologian, exegete a text, deal with some biblical-theological issue with ethical implications (e.g. “Law and Grace in Gal. 3”), treat an ethical problem, or do anything else pertinent to the concerns of the course. I construe “ethics” pretty broadly, but I’d rather you did not choose a topic that is systematically treated in another course, unless you focus on ethical implications of that topic. For instance, don’t write on “The Image of God in Reformed Thought,” but you might write on “Moral Excellence as an Aspect of the Image of God.”

Topical Discussion Question #3

Should we continue to keep the Sabbath today? If not, why not? If so, how should we observe it? Give biblical arguments.

Yes, I believe that we should continue to keep the Sabbath today as it is a regular day of rest and worship which God has provided for man to keep.  He has blessed it and made it holy in creation (Gen 2:2), he has given it to his covenant people through the mosaic law (Ex 20:8-11), and it shall continue until our final day of redemption.  The redemptive promise is something that we look back on with thankfulness (Deut 5:15), and look forward to in anticipation (Eph 1:14).

At creation, God entered into a Sabbath rest that has been held out for his people as a promised rest in consummation.  The atonement provided to God's covenant people through the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ was our down payment on that rest secured for us, and Holy Spirit is a guarantee of the fulfillment of that promise offering us a taste of that rest daily.  Specifically, as the Lord has blessed and made holy one day in seven for us to keep the Sabbath, there is a real spiritual significance to that day.

In light of the New Testament, we now keep that day as the first day of the week in remembrance of the Resurrection of Christ.  It is a day "to celebrate the consummation of redemption in advance", as the Psalmist anticipates with us the feast to come in glory (Ps 23:5-6).  As such, not only should the Sabbath be a time of worship and rest, but also a time of great delight and joy as we celebrate the feast.   We are living in an already  consummated year of jubilee where we should be proclaiming liberty to the world (Lev 25:10), and living in the delight of our Lord and Savior, awaiting the fullness of the coming of his kingdom.  His kingdom work will continue, through worship, rest, celebration, works of necessity and mercy until the end of days has reached its finality in the eschatological return of the King.

Topical Discussion Question #4

Is it right to use embryonic stem cells for research? If not, why not? If so, are there any limitations on how we should do this? Refer to biblical principles.

If embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of an embryo, then this type of research should not be done unless the embryo is already dead.  As we can see the importance of life in Scripture, and specifically the lives of the weak and helpless, of which unborn children would be, it is right to protect their lives.  While Scripture itself is not written for the purposes of scientific research, it is evident that embryos have their own distinct chromosomal make-up which is in line with Psalm 139 as David proclaims his intimacy with God by being formed in his mother's womb.  As people are formed at conception, then only when they are no longer living should their bodies (embryos) be made available for research.

The slippery slope argument would suggest then that if embryonic stem cell research is allowed, then it would encourage the killing of embryos for this purpose.  This is a fair point, and one that should be taken into consideration by a society seeking to constrain the harm that is done both intentionally and unintentionally to its citizens.  However, there are many natural reasons why pregnancies end which do no harm to the life of either the mother or child, and if those embryos are viable candidates for stem cell research, then those parents should be given the opportunity to donate them for those purposes.  And if they are not viable, then science should be spurred on to use their creative resources to find a way to get the type of stem cells necessary for their research without doing harm to life.

Topical Discussion Question #2

Is it possible for a natural law ethic to honor the sufficiency of Scripture? Define both “natural law” and “sufficiency of Scripture” and present your analysis.

The Aristotelian view on natural law that Aquinas attempted to Christianize creates a dichotomy between earthly and heavenly happiness.  By focusing on the natural law, which is to say that there is a "moral order, found in nature and man himself," then the one who believes in a natural law ethic would believe in the sufficiency of nature.  You would need nothing more than what is revealed in nature - through the environment, through science, biology, anthropology, etc - to define your ethical norms.  The natural law proponent would find all they need for earthly happiness, understanding, and knowledge in the world around them to apply the tenants of that ethic to their lives and to the lives of others.

Unfortunately, due to the sufficiency of Scripture over nature, there is no such dichotomy between earthly and heavenly happiness.  Scripture, as God's revealed Word and therefore His special revelation, is needed by mankind to apply a true ethic to the world order. Scripture provides our basis, and interpretive lens through which we will see ourselves and the world around us.  It is sufficient for providing the norms that are needed to apply a true ethic to life.

Due to the fall, and the infectious nature of sin, the ramifications of that historical event have not only created a problem for man when interpreting nature, but have also created the need for the restoration of God's word and man's access to it through special revelation.  This is how God speaks to us today, and is how we are to interpret both the world around us and ourselves through Scripture's lens.  In God's speaking to us, and our existential revelation in applying his words to our situational perspective - our true ethic is revealed in the way we live our lives.  Natural law is insufficient to provide that revelation, but Scripture is more than sufficient to do so.

Topical Discussion Question #1

Define the naturalistic fallacy and present an example of it from recent discussion: could be from a book you’ve read, a political speech, a newspaper column, etc. Present your analysis and critique.

The naturalistic fallacy is defined as the inability to draw the conclusion of what is ethically obligated based on the premises.  Another way to define this would be to say, "that the is does not imply ought because there is no ought in the premise."  In a recent conversation with a friend, we were discussing the aftermath of a recent storm that ravaged our neighborhoods.  As we spoke, I said that thankfully God had provided for us because all the damage that was done had been taken care of by the insurance company, a timely bonus at work, etc.  He said that they were taken care of as well because "good things happen to good people."  While I was not stating that God ought to provide for me because of the damage we faced, my friend did say that good things ought to happen to him because he is a good person.  This unfortunately is an example of a naturalistic fallacy because the conclusion that good things should happen cannot be derived from the premise that he is a good person.  In my view, God provides for his people because he promises to do so, not because he is obligated to by anything more than his word.  In my friend's view, there is an expectation of provision that ought to come from his view that he is a good person.  As much as I desire for good things to happen to us both, I realize that they don't happen because we are good people, but because God wills the rain and the sunshine to fall upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike.