Also in some correspondence concerning the
hate speech of Christians who hold certain political views, I was given the
excuse that "most believers in America today" have a
"dilemma" concerning the direction their country is headed.
I had written out some thoughts on these
matters but never posted them. And then
a recent post by my friend Canadian Atheist spoke of an ethical dilemma he had
about eating meat. This brought to mind
my previous musings so I figured I might as well post them.
A dilemma is a choice we have to make, but
don't want to, especially when either alternative is undesirable. When I speak of an ethical (or moral)
dilemma, I have in mind a situation in which one is confronted with only two
apparent alternatives, either of which would involve sin.
Most of us are, at some time or another,
faced with genuine ethical dilemmas, but we should be careful not to see every
difficult decision as a dilemma. The
following are not ethical dilemmas:
·
A
decision between two goods. The decision
of how to behave in such a situation must be made on the basis of wisdom and
sometimes simply personal preference.
·
A
decision between good and evil. That is
what's known as temptation. Many of the
"dilemmas" presented in our popular culture -- fiction, movies, country
songs -- are just that.
·
A
choice of "let us do evil that good may come" (Romans 3:8), of
choosing a wrong act to achieve a good end -- i.e., "the end justifies the
means."
What is an ethical dilemma then? It is when I am faced with a situation in which
whatever action I choose, I will be doing wrong. The classic example:
Suppose I live in Nazi Germany. I have Jews hidden in my house. The Gestapo knock on my door and inquire if
there are any Jews hidden inside. Do I
tell them the truth and allow innocent people to be condemned (which would be a
sin of omission on my part), or do I simply lie (which would also be a sin) in
order to protect the innocent?
I suspect that most would say "No
problem, just lie." But how do I
really determine what to do in such a dilemma?
Those of us who look to the Scripture as our
guide for making moral choices may be frustrated when we look at the cases
mentioned there.
One of the situations usually noted is the case of the Hebrew midwives
who lied to Pharaoh to save the lives of the Hebrew baby boys and were
apparently rewarded by God for this act (Exodus 1:15-21). However, it should be noted that the lie
itself is not commended, but their fear of God (verses 17, 21) and undoubtedly
their refusal to comply with Pharaoh's order.
Another case is Rahab who hid the Hebrew spies and lied to their
pursuers to save their lives (Joshua 2, especially verses 3-5). She also was rewarded by having her life and
the life of her family spared (Joshua 6:25).
Though the text does not say God rewarded her, the New Testament does
commend her, especially for her faith (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). Again it should be noted that the lie itself
was not commended, but her faith which led to action.
There were
other dilemmas in the Bible, such as Jephthah’s rash
vow which led to the sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30, 31, 34-40) and
Herod Antipas’ rash vow which led to the death of John the Baptist (Mark
6:22-28). In both cases there was a
decision between breaking a vow and taking an innocent human life. In neither case is the decision to keep the
vow commended or condemned. As often in the
Bible, the actions are merely reported without any moral pronouncement being
made. We should be careful not to make
an "ought" out of every action reported in the Scripture.
Before we go any further, I believe something should be said about the
view that has been described as "unqualified absolutism," (a view
held by some Christians) whose basic premise is that all moral conflicts are
only apparent and not real. This view boils down to just two or three
errors:
·
The error that the “way of escape” of 1
Corinthians 10:13 means that there will always be a “third alternative.” The way of escape is given “that we may be
able to bear” the test, not avoid it.
Sometimes what seems to be faith may simply be presumption. In the cases of Rahab and the Hebrew
midwives, even if there might have been a “third alternative,” they are not faulted
for not taking it.
·
The error that “all real moral conflicts are
brought on by a person’s prior sin(s).”
While some of them may be, not all are.
And even so, the individual is still faced with a real moral
dilemma.
·
The tendency to rationalize sin as not being
sin. Two of the biblical cases mentioned
above involved deception. To argue that
a deliberate deception is not a lie if somehow phrased in truthful terms, is
casuistry. This would get Satan off the
hook for his lie to Eve (Genesis 3:5, 6).
So it seems obvious that we many times may be forced to
make a choice between two evils. How do
we determine? I believe the following
thoughts may be of help. At least they
have for me.
·
Sin is always sin. Lying is always sin, even if it is chosen
rather than the alternative.
·
There is a gradation of higher and lower moral
laws. Some sins are worse than
others. Jesus' reply to Pilate in John
19:11 would appear to indicate this:
"You would have no authority over me unless it had been given to
you from above. Because of this, the one
who handed me over to you has the greater sin."
·
Though we may choose "the lesser
evil," God while regarding this act as an evil, apparently does not in
this case impute guilt to the sinner.
Apparently "extenuating circumstances" are considered.
How do we determine which choice to make when confronted
with an ethical dilemma? Ethicists, both
Christian and non-Christian, have discussed this question for centuries and it
seems that when someone comes up with a formula for determining, a new dilemma
shows up that does not fit the formula.
So, though many criteria have been suggested, I'll suggest one that I
believe is biblical. It is love, the
simple choice of others over self.
This won't solve all our dilemmas, but it should be of
help in many. It would mean that I must
make a choice that would benefit others more than myself. It could mean that I would bear the harsher
consequences.
Our big problem is that often these dilemmas do not allow
us time to meditate and ponder both sides of the matter, as in our voting
practice. Rather, they come on us
instantly -- maybe not the Nazis at the door, but in other ways. It is then that we must make a decision based
on the working of the Spirit in bringing to our minds what are the right
choices.
[NOTE: Many of
these thoughts are taken from my notes for a biblical ethics class I taught at
the College of Biblical Studies in Houston in 2005.]
