On the Ground of Early Christian Ethics

Glenn Plastina

Initially, the question on the ground of Christian ethics is still a puzzle for me. In class discussions, the ground for Christian ethics is sometimes hard to identify. In fact there seems to be "grounds" of Christian moral. Let me reiterate them.

First, early Christian ethics were partly based upon the ancient biblical documents with various moral judgments. It partly evolved through particular times and traditions, especially in the Old Testament scriptures. Yet, biblical characters, both in the Old and New Testaments, themselves faced moral issues where their judgments were basically different than other believers. They themselves don’t have unified norm. Perhaps, this is so because of varied interpretations of the exiting data in hand. But we have to remember that in the pre-written era of the Torah--and it applies to the Prophetic writings--ethical standards were not totally the same as in the New. Today, students of Scripture interpretation also vary in their "biblical" convictions on practical and social matters. This will lead to the next consideration.

Second, early Christian ethics utilized Judaistic, as well as Greek, legacies to shape the form of their moral judgment. Here, an art of accommodation can be seen in a classical way. Ethical standards according to perceived authority, either a tradition or philosophical arguments, will sometimes do. Most of the first generation Christians were Jewish in heritage with an admixture of a Greek-Hellenistic culture. It would be hard--but not totally impossible--for us to take that they have no homogenous worldview to express their ethical standards and practices. But it is likely that they do have heterogenous worldviews affecting their practices and lifestyles, social and practical applications.

Third, early Christian ethics used reason as another source of authority, as also expressed in the Wisdom traditions, philosophical logic, and universal laws. As a rational being and member of a community of faith, reason has its place more often than not.

Fourth, early Christian ethics also utilized human experience as norm for morality. Here, it is probable that these norms are not basically coming from the community of faith, but also from universal experience of man accommodated in the Christian development of ethics. Even the Bible characters knew themselves about God through one main avenue: experience.

Fifth, early Christian ethics considered the role of intuition in practice. Since the Bible is never a systematic book on morals and values, sanctified human intuition and perceived direct revelation--sometimes via mystical experience--can be an elemental part of the moral judgment. In fact experience is a powerful force in moral decisions and observance. Here, faith can also fit in.

Sixth, early Christian ethics appealed to Christ, surely, a more flexible--but specific--focal point of morality. Here, the norm could be perceived by giving value to the assumptions of, in modern expression, what would Jesus do in a certain situation. Or this could be an appeal to his teachings, his life and works. But there are, certainly, somethings in Christ that may not be considered a universal standard for ethics and practice, e.g. celibacy, crucifixion, forty-days fasting, and others. This will lead to another proposed ground of early Christian ethics.

Seventh, early Christian ethics used love-- pure and holy love--as moral standard. This could be the great step to a practical application and appropriation of moral judgment in every situation, especially in dealing with other persons. Love as the highest rule is more than a clue. But what could be the last “ground” that we would consider? Isn’t it that most of these assumed grounds were planted upon the seventh element, discussed so far? Yet we can't stop therein.

Eight, early Christian ethics perceived the overarching element of a theistic perspective of conduct. This concept pervades every other elements, otherwise compartmentalized. The concept of God is the permeating factor that influences the moral judgment of early Christians. Every moral intentions and deeds of the early Christians were likely pointed out to God as the perfect--and yet mysterious--ground of reference.

But a careful reflection considers questions concerning these perceived grounds of Christian ethics above. Isn’t it that diversity is evident in these various stands and arguments mentioned above? Even if the ultimate element based upon the concept of God prevails, isn’t it that this, as well as others, is subject to the personal and subjective “interpretation” of the proponent and practitioner? If this is so, are there “grounds” of ethics--and not one? Are the “roots” of Christian ethics finding its fruition in the end (telos)? But which end? The ultimate ground of all being on which all moral people will give account for every decision and act made in this life?

Is there not an interplay here between the Ground of being and the created moral being which perceives the epicenter as the focal point of morality? After all, the question of morality is not of objects, but subjects.