SBCWitness

Last night, I was watching "Nightline" on ABC and saw a truly disturbing story on a new reality television program to be hitting the airwaves in the Netherlands this Friday. The title of the show is "Big Donor Show" (or at least that is the English equivalent). The premise of the show is that three contestants will vie for the sympathy of the organ donor and the television audience in order to receive their votes and get the kidney. The donor is a 37-year-old woman with terminal brain cancer. Rather than going through the normal process of donating her organs, she wants to meet the recipient before she dies. The producers agree that the program is tasteless, but they want to draw attention to the poor system of organ donation in the Netherlands (according to the story, the founder of the television station airing the show waited for 13 years to receive a kidney through normal procedures).

While the issue of organ donation is certainly one that needs to be addressed, using reality television to "outplay" other contestants for a kidney is horrendous. Nathan Finn wrote an article expressing his disdain for another reality program that played on the contestants’ greed. This reality program plays with the contestants’ lives. No longer is the prize a sum of money that could change someone’s life. This prize will give someone life.

Has our society lost its moral compass? Did we ever have one to begin with?

Tags: Culture by Evan Lenow
1 Comment »

Amidst all the controversy swirling around the SBC and the Christian world in general, I thought it might be interesting to explore the role of ethics in the life of the believer, and specifically within the SBC since that is our context. Certainly, there are many approaches to this subject, and not even Baptist, much less evangelicals, agree on the best approach to ethics. Since this is my field of study, however, I will throw my hat into the ring.

To provide a little historical perspective, there are three major systems of ethics that pre-date the birth of Christ. These are virtue ethics (roughly 4th century B.C. with Plato), natural law ethics (roughly 5th century B.C. with Sophocles, but made famous by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century A.D.), and deontological ethics (dating back to the Exodus, but made famous by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century). Of course, there are other systems that play a role in the development of ethics, but it is my opinion that most other systems can be seen as an offshoot of one of these (if not just virtue and deontological).

Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the person rather than the act. It emphasizes a life of excellence in light of the character of the person. Aristotle famously set forth the four cardinal virtues of temperance (self-control/moderation), justice, prudence (wisdom), and fortitude (courage). Aristotle considered the virtues to be the "golden mean" (though he never used that terminology) between two vices. Hence, fortitude is the virtuous mean between the vices of cowardice and rashness. Augustine came along and subsumed the cardinal virtues under Christian love. Then Thomas Aquinas developed the concept of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas discusses more than 60 virtues, but all of them fall under the categories of the cardinal or theological virtues. Virtue ethics seemed to fall off the face of the map for a few centuries but has seen a revival in the last 50 years or so, especially from the pens of Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and Stanley Grenz.

Natural law theory saw its beginning with Sophocles and Cicero, but it was made famous by Aquinas (in combination with his virtue ethics). At the heart of natural law ethics are the following principles: natural law is given by God in laws of nature together with human reason; natural law is naturally authoritative over all human beings—necessarily binding on everyone, not subject to individual choice; natural law is naturally knowable by all human beings—those with defective reasoning must defer to those with better reasoning; good is prior to the right; and when there is more than one way to reach our common ends, human law is introduced to supplement natural law. Natural law has typically been the approach to ethics for the Roman Catholic Church since the days of Aquinas. Current natural law scholars include Robert George, John Finnis, and J. Budziszewski.

Deontological ethics is a duty-based, or obligation-based, system of ethics. It generally dates back to the days of Moses in the exodus, but did not become influential until Immanuel Kant developed his categorical imperative. Kant’s imperative includes a universalization principle and a means-end principle. The universalization principle states: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The means-end principle states: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." This system of ethics focuses on the act and the duty, or obligation, fulfilled by performing (or not performing) that act. Deontological ethics still holds some influence among academic circles due to the vast influence of Kant. However, the greatest concentration of deontology, I would argue, can be found in the typical conservative, evangelical church.

So how does this relate to the SBC? Stay tuned for part 2.

Tags: Ethics, Southern Baptist Convention by Evan Lenow
3 Comments »

I just returned this week from the World Congress of Families IV in Warsaw, Poland. This is supposedly the largest pro-family organization in the world with over 3,300 delegates participating in this year’s congress. Among the dizzying statistics cited regarding the demographic winter of Europe (steadily decreasing birthrates leading to negative population growth) and the demise of the traditional family around the world, I heard the following statistic: “Teen girls from intact families with frequent religious attendance averaged the fewest sexual partners (0.47) when compared to (a) their peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (0.93), (b) peers from intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.14), and (c) peers from non-intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.55)” (cited here by the speaker). As the father of two young girls, this statistic scares me. Of course statistics can be made to say almost anything, but the general idea is that daughters of intact families who frequently attend religious services are much less likely to have pre-marital sexual partners—and if they do, there are usually fewer partners. On the positive side, we can say that churchgoers in intact families are less likely to have daughters who participate in pre-marital sexual activity. On the negative side, it still shows quite a bit of sexual activity on the part of churchgoing teenage girls from intact families.

So, what can we do with this information? First, we need to proclaim from the mountaintops the importance of the intact (not divorced/separated), traditional (one man, one woman) family. Second, we need to cry out to God from our knees for the grace and wisdom to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Taking your kids to church is not the solution—walking with the Lord and trusting His wisdom for parenting is. Even if we do everything perfectly, we are not guaranteed perfect children. However, we can rest in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 22:6, which reads, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

Tags: Family Life by Evan Lenow
3 Comments »