Guided Reading Course – Ethics | Emmanuel Evangelical Church

Guided Reading Course - Ethics

Every Christian is a theonomist - 14 December 2011

This morning’s tutorial in the new Ethics module of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course touched on the subject of theonomy. This topic has become somewhat controversial among some evangelical and Reformed churches in recent years, so it’s worth being clear about what exactly we’re talking about.

“Laws” in the sense of “rules that must be obeyed” (as distinct from “the Law of Moses”) are inescapable in Christian ethics, and indeed in the Christian life generally. The key question is not “Law or no law?” but rather, “Which law should we follow?” or perhaps better, “Whose law should we follow?”

There are three possible answers to this question: (1) God’s law; (2) My law; (3) Someone else’s law. Every Christian must of course be committed to the first of these – God’s law, another name for which is theonomy (theos = God; nomos = law). Every Christian, therefore, is a theonomist.

This position must be distinguished from another possible theological viewpoint that also bears the name “theonomy”. This is the position espoused by Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony and others, who at various times during their ministries have been described as theonomists. These men believe(d) not only that all Christians are required to obey God’s law, but also that this law has a certain content.

Clearly, one could be committed to the view that Christians are required to obey God’s law (theonomy) while disagreeing with these theonomists about what that actually entails. In fact, these men all held rather different views about the particular shape of God’s law. This only serves to underline further the crucial point: every Christian is (or should be) a theonomist, although as we study the Scriptures we may reach different conclusions about precisely what the relevant nomoi are.

(Not) abolishing the Law - 14 December 2011

Here is the assignment following the eighth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write brief notes about how Jesus’ insistence that he did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) is consistent with Paul’s statement that Jesus has abolished the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16).

You might find it helpful to reflect on the following sub-questions (among others):

What does “abolish” mean in each context?
What “Law” is being referred to in each context?
What purpose is served by the non-abolition / abolition in each context?

The following commentaries and other secondary works represent a variety of different perspectives, and may be helpful:

Calvin’s commentaries on the relevant texts
D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
Peter T. O’Brien, Ephesians (PNTC)
Chapter 2 of Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics
Other standard Reformed texts (Turretin, Institutes; Calvin, Institutes; etc.)

If you are unable to answer these questions comprehensively or with certainty, try at least to clarify (1) the questions that would need to be addressed; and (2) some possible answers that might be given.

Bowing in the Temple of Rimmon - 9 December 2011

Here is the assignment following the seventh tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. How do the eleven questions in the section of the notes headed “Some questions to clarify the situation under consideration” shed light on the actions found or described in the following texts, where someone is (implicitly or otherwise) either commended or criticised for their response to another person’s sin?

a. 2 Kings 5:17-19. Naaman is excused for bowing down in the Temple of Rimmon when his master sinfully bows while leaning on his arm.

b. Nehemiah 13:23-25. Nehemiah responds with considerable vigour to the sinful intermarriages between Israelites and their Pagan neighbours.

c. Psalm 1. This Psalm forbids some forms of association (walk … stand … sit) with some sinful people. You may find it helpful to reflect also on the following texts: Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25; 24:21-22; 29:24.

d. Acts 12:21-23. Herod is struck down when he “did not give God the glory” after the people shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not a man!”

e. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. Paul instructs the Corinthians “not to associate” with certain people, while not forbidding association with others.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Brief notes or bullets points are fine.

The good or the best? - 30 November 2011

Here are the questions following the sixth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Give examples of how Scripture (implicitly or explicitly) nuances or modifies each of the Ten Commandments such that actions which might superficially appear to violate one of the Commandments turn out on closer inspection to be permissible or praiseworthy.

Here’s an example: Rahab is commended (explicitly in James 2:25 and implicitly in Joshua 2) for lying to the soldiers who were searching for the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:3-6). Though one might think at first glance that Rahab’s actions violated the ninth commandment, in fact these other considerations show that the commandment “Do not bear false witness” is nuanced in such a way that it is not being violated in this situation.

2. Give examples (either from Scripture or elsewhere, though not from Luke 10:30-37, see below) of ways in which the following eight factors (highlighted by Austin Fagothey in Right and Reason) might allow us to determine which of two competing affirmative duties ought to be undertaken.

a. the nobler person – God before man
b. the closer relationship – closer relatives before remote ones
c. the more common good – world peace before personal comfort
d. the wider social order – family before individual
e. the graver matter – life before property
f. the greater urgency – fighting a fire before reading a book
g. the higher law – inalienable rights before alienable
h. the clearer title – paying a debt before giving a gift

3. * Explain how each of the eight factors listed above are (a) exemplified by the Good Samaritan; and/or (b) ignored by the Priest and the Levite in Luke 10:30-37.

* Do question 3 only if you have time after having done questions 1 and 2, and please don’t select any of your examples for question 2 from Luke 10:30-37.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too.

My conscience is clear - 23 November 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fifth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write brief notes on 1 Corinthians 8-10 (focussing particularly on chapters 8 and 10) to explain how Paul’s example and teaching exemplify the proper role of the conscience in ethical reflection. Some issues to bear in mind may include (but may not be limited to) the following:

the importance of following one’s conscience;
the importance of educating one’s conscience;
the distinction between material sin and formal sin;
ignorance as a modifier of culpability;
the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance;
the distinction between natural evil and moral evil;
what one should do in cases of ethical uncertainty;
whether one should seek to compel someone else to act against their conscience;
whether, how, and when one should seek to educate another person’s conscience.

Note: I’m not looking for a detailed essay here. Something more conversational in style or a series of bullet points would be fine.

I was afraid, so… - 22 November 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fourth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Consider the following situations, in which fear might inclined a person to do something which, if looked at in isolation, we would consider bad:

A Christian denies the gospel after being threatened with execution if he refuses to worship Allah.
A man steals his friend’s car keys to prevent his friend driving home after drinking too much alcohol.
A Missionary-Pastor abandons his church after he and his family receive threats of violence from members of the local community.
A homeowner hears a burglar downstairs in the dead of night, attacks him and renders him unconscious.
A 20-stone weightlifter breaks a child’s arm after the child threatens him in the gym.
A child joins in with playground bullies after being threatened, “Punch the new kid or we’ll punch you.”
A Christian child joins in with Halloween celebrations at school out of fear of social ostracism.
A sailor, fearing an impending storm, throws his passengers’ belongings overboard.

State briefly whether the fear provoked by the perceived threat justifies the action performed in each case. If you think that the action would be justified in some circumstances, but not in others, explain the nature of the circumstances that would make the difference.

Then explain what principles you employed to distinguish between the different situations. You may wish to consider (among others) the following factors:

What kind of evil the agent fears (moral evil or natural evil);
The degree of active, studied consent involved at the moment the action is performed;
The credibility of the threat;
The degree of proportion between the threat and the action taken.

Making a bad situation worse - 19 October 2011

The last couple of exercises in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course have mentioned the answer to question 151 of the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC). Here’s the relevant question and answer in full:

WLC Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

Answer: Sins receive their aggravations,

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

Bad boy Saul - 19 October 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the third tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write an ethical commentary on the life of Saul as presented in 1 Samuel 9-31, drawing particular attention to the following:

(a) ways in which John Frame’s “perspectives” (normative, situational, existential) draw attention to moral defects in Saul’s actions;

(b) examples of ethical “aggravations” discussed in the answer to question 151 in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 151).

Note: As before, I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Bullet points or something very conversational in style (perhaps akin to a blog post) is fine. Try to distribute the 4 hours reasonably evenly across the whole of this narrative of Saul’s life. About 10 minutes per chapter would get you through the whole lot with a few minutes to spare.

Ethical aggravations - 18 October 2011

Here are the questions following the second tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. How could each of the following actions be rendered sinful by a defect in each of the three perspectives (normative, situational, existential)?

a. Helping an old lady across the road.

b. Preaching a sermon.

c. Getting married.

d. Remaining single.

e. Going to church.

f. Reading a book on Christian ethics.

2. Analyse the answer to WLC 151, explaining how each of the “aggravations” mentioned could be viewed from one of Frame’s three perspectives. (You will probably find it helpful to group the aggravations into categories for this purpose, rather than discussing each one individually.)

3. Find biblical examples of each of the “aggravations” mentioned in the answer to WLC 151. (Please do not look at the WLC proof texts; do not use Bible software or a concordance for any purpose other than to find biblical references that you can already remember; and do not use Google at all. This is an exercise in thinking carefully about the Bible, not in whether you can type and use a dictionary.)

Suggested time allocation: 45-60 minutes for question 1; about 30 minutes for question 2; and the rest of the 4 hours or so for question 3.

Introduction to Christian Ethics - 12 October 2011

Last week saw the launch of an entirely new course on the Guided Reading Course – Introduction to Christian Ethics. More details will follow in future weeks. In the meantime, just to whet your appetite, here’s the first assignment, due in at the second tutorial today, Wednesday 12 October.

1. Make the appropriate distinctions and clarifications necessary to explain what is right and what is wrong with the following statements:

a. Sunday School lessons should have a single, simple, clear application.

b. God’s Spirit already indwells all Christians, so it makes no sense for a congregation to ask God to pour out his Spirit upon us.

2. Choose any sin described in a narrative portion of the Bible, and explain how this sin is a violation of each one of the Ten Commandments.

3. Explain briefly what light is shed on the following problems by each of the three “perspectives” on ethics: situational, normative, existential. (You may find that the three perspectives do not contribute equally to every situation – that’s fine.)

a. At what age should a child be given alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper?

b. At what age should a parent give a child alcoholic wine at family meals?

c. A Police Officer, who is required to work two weekends every five, is converted to Christ. Should he quit his job?

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

Introduction to Christian Ethics - 5 October 2011

Last week saw the launch of an entirely new course on the Guided Reading Course – Introduction to Christian Ethics. More details to follow in future weeks. In the meantime, just to whet your appetite, here’s the first assignment, due in at the second tutorial today, Wednesday 12 October.