Christian Ethics in a Technological Age
Glenn Plastina
Is the Bible sufficient enough for ethics in a post-modern technological era? Is the argument on silence a solid basis for ethical stance? To what extent Christians have to address modern issues? What grounds can be made in a technological, pragmatic understanding of ethics? This could be a great challenge to those who held dearly to the sola-scriptura-believers who try to make Christian ethics a strong foundation or at least a catalyst in the post-modern period. This is not, however, a case of take-it-or-leave-it argument; but a challenge to re-evaluate the basis and nature of a Christian ethical stance for contemporary ministers. It cannot be denied that the Bible is silent on many matters that concern the post-modern world. Humanity today is far different from the times where the Bible was shaped. Of course, the basic belief takes the Bible as Word of God and is eternal; but this claim must be coupled with a qualifier to make it more sensible to the intelligent searchers of truth and morality.
Personally, to claim that the Bible has all the answers to all the modern concerns of the technological era is an overstatement (That's why I like the hippie slogan "Jesus is the answer, but what's the question?"). This is putting the Bible in place where it remained silent, e.g. bioethics, cloning, etc. And to force the Bible to talk on our behalf can only be a product of our subjective and postulated interpretations. At least, a manifestation of our creative implant as imago Dei.
Implications can be arbitrary to support our own preconceptions. This is the usual case of interpreting the Bible in accordance to one's denominational stance or personal preference. In a way, to address the ethical stance of Christianity today can never be homogenous to some extent; it must pave the way for variety, open-mindedness, and tolerance. Here, I perceived that Christ’s greatest command remains intact to lovingly live life to the fullest and in genuine relationship. This could be expressed in being responsible for our demeanor in a utilitarian community. It will cover a benevolent dominion--a delegated sovereignty--over God’s creation and nature. At the same time, it is also responsible for the future generations who are yet to come, but has become a part of the present.
If a theocentric ethics can be proposed here to meet the contemporary needs of modern man, its thesis for God as the ground of morality must be elaborated. It is not as simple as proposing God as moral or amoral for it requires lucid arguments that appeals to reason, faith, and practicality. In relation to the scientific age, a theocentric or theonomous ethics can be an alternative that might be developed. Grounding morality upon the universal God can be a potential enterprise to explain the significance of God in relation to modern morality.
Is the Bible sufficient enough for ethics in a post-modern technological era? Is the argument on silence a solid basis for ethical stance? To what extent Christians have to address modern issues? What grounds can be made in a technological, pragmatic understanding of ethics? This could be a great challenge to those who held dearly to the sola-scriptura-believers who try to make Christian ethics a strong foundation or at least a catalyst in the post-modern period. This is not, however, a case of take-it-or-leave-it argument; but a challenge to re-evaluate the basis and nature of a Christian ethical stance for contemporary ministers. It cannot be denied that the Bible is silent on many matters that concern the post-modern world. Humanity today is far different from the times where the Bible was shaped. Of course, the basic belief takes the Bible as Word of God and is eternal; but this claim must be coupled with a qualifier to make it more sensible to the intelligent searchers of truth and morality.
Personally, to claim that the Bible has all the answers to all the modern concerns of the technological era is an overstatement (That's why I like the hippie slogan "Jesus is the answer, but what's the question?"). This is putting the Bible in place where it remained silent, e.g. bioethics, cloning, etc. And to force the Bible to talk on our behalf can only be a product of our subjective and postulated interpretations. At least, a manifestation of our creative implant as imago Dei.
Implications can be arbitrary to support our own preconceptions. This is the usual case of interpreting the Bible in accordance to one's denominational stance or personal preference. In a way, to address the ethical stance of Christianity today can never be homogenous to some extent; it must pave the way for variety, open-mindedness, and tolerance. Here, I perceived that Christ’s greatest command remains intact to lovingly live life to the fullest and in genuine relationship. This could be expressed in being responsible for our demeanor in a utilitarian community. It will cover a benevolent dominion--a delegated sovereignty--over God’s creation and nature. At the same time, it is also responsible for the future generations who are yet to come, but has become a part of the present.
If a theocentric ethics can be proposed here to meet the contemporary needs of modern man, its thesis for God as the ground of morality must be elaborated. It is not as simple as proposing God as moral or amoral for it requires lucid arguments that appeals to reason, faith, and practicality. In relation to the scientific age, a theocentric or theonomous ethics can be an alternative that might be developed. Grounding morality upon the universal God can be a potential enterprise to explain the significance of God in relation to modern morality.
posted by GlenPlas @ 12:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home