Consequences of Relativistic Worldview on Christian Ethics
A relativistic worldview, which posits that truth and morality are not absolute but are relative to individual perspectives or cultural contexts, has significant consequences for Christian ethics, which traditionally grounds morality in the unchanging character and commands of God [1]. This contrast highlights a fundamental tension between subjective and objective understandings of right and wrong.
One of the primary consequences of a relativistic worldview is the erosion of a universal moral standard. If truth is relative, then there can be no objective moral laws that apply to all people at all times. This stands in stark contrast to the Christian understanding that God's law, as revealed in Scripture, provides a fixed and immutable guide for human behavior [1]. For instance, the Apostle Paul, in Romans, describes how turning away from God can lead to an "unsound mind," where individuals are no longer able to use their minds as God intended, suggesting a departure from an objective standard of thought and action [1].
The concept of sin itself becomes problematic within a relativistic framework. In Christian theology, sin is understood as a transgression against God's law, a deviation from His perfect will [3]. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, describes sin as "alienum" (alien) to God's nature, resulting in the forfeiture of divine favor and spiritual death [3]. He further elaborates that the consequences of Adam's sin, as the representative head of humanity, included the loss of original righteousness and the corruption of human nature [5]. If morality is relative, however, the very idea of a universal "sin" against an objective standard loses its meaning. What one person considers a sin, another might view as a morally neutral or even positive action, depending on their personal or cultural perspective.
This relativism can lead to a diminished sense of accountability. If there are no objective moral truths, then individuals are ultimately accountable only to themselves or to the prevailing norms of their chosen community. This contrasts sharply with the Christian belief in a God who judges all people according to His righteous standards [6]. Hodge argues against the idea that God's judgments, such as the deluge or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, could be considered unjust, even when they affected those "innocent of the offences" for which they were inflicted, because they are rooted in God's sovereign justice [6]. A relativistic perspective, by denying such an ultimate judge and objective standard, undermines the basis for divine judgment and the need for repentance and redemption.
Furthermore, a relativistic worldview can undermine the authority of religious texts and traditions in ethical decision-making. If the teachings of the Bible are merely one set of cultural narratives among many, then their ethical pronouncements hold no more inherent authority than any other moral code. This can lead to a situation where individuals pick and choose which aspects of Christian ethics they wish to follow, based on personal preference rather than divine command. Hodge observes how some theologians, rather than being controlled by "Scriptural statements," adhere to modern theories, allowing their own convictions to supersede the authority of the Bible [7]. This approach, where philosophical theories are integrated into Scripture doctrine, is seen by Hodge as "adding to the word of God" and making the truth of Scriptural doctrines dependent on the correctness of philosophical theories [4].
The impact of relativism can also be seen in the understanding of justice. Rashi, commenting on Ecclesiastes, notes the apparent paradox where "righteous men" experience misfortune while "wicked" individuals prosper [2]. This observation, from a Jewish perspective, highlights the complexity of discerning justice in the world, but it does not negate the existence of an ultimate, objective justice. A relativistic view, however, might suggest that "justice" itself is a culturally constructed concept, varying from one society to another. This makes it difficult to advocate for universal human rights or to condemn practices that are widely considered immoral, if such condemnations are merely expressions of one cultural preference over another.
In the context of theological discussions, Hodge criticizes "Realism" for introducing philosophical theories outside of Scripture to account for Adam's sin, thereby making the truth of Scriptural doctrines dependent on philosophical correctness [4]. He also notes how certain theological views, such as those denying Christ's vicarious atonement or the imputation of His righteousness, reject the "Church view of the plan of salvation" [9]. These examples illustrate how external philosophical frameworks, similar to relativistic thinking, can challenge core Christian doctrines and their ethical implications.
The historical development of Christian ethics has often involved grappling with external philosophical ideas. For instance, the Latin Church's understanding of original righteousness as a supernatural gift, and the effect of Adam's sin as the loss of that gift, shaped its views on sin and grace [8]. However, when philosophical theories are allowed to dictate the interpretation of Scripture, rather than Scripture informing philosophical understanding, the integrity of Christian ethics can be compromised. Hodge warns against making the "truth of Scriptural doctrines to depend on the correctness of philosophical theories" [4].
Sources
- Romans (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Romans 1:28: 1:28 thought it foolish: Sin affects our actions and even our thoughts. One of the serious consequences of turning away from God is an unsound mind; people can no longer use their minds as God intended.”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) on Ecclesiastes 8:14: There are righteous men. To whom evil happens [as though] they acted wickedly, and there are wicked to whom good happens [as though] they acted righteously. 28 Alternatively, there are righteous men who acquire a bad reputation as though they acted wickedly, is referring to a foolish righteous person who takes the practices of his piety to ridiculous levels (Sforno). Mesilas Yeshorim states that one must not decide upon the saintliness of a deed on the basis of its surface appearance alone, rather he should view the deed, including its conse”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 49: alienum , and the penalty of it, the forfeiture of the divine favour, the loss of original righteousness, and spiritual death, are its sad consequences. Just as the righteousness of Christ is not our own but is imputed to us, and we have a title in justice on the ground of that righteousness, if we accept and trust it, to all the benefits of redemption. This, which is clearly the doctrine of the Apostle and of the Protestant churches, the realistic doctrine denies. That is, it denies that the sin of Adam as the sin of another is the groun”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 49: the simple Scriptural statement. Realism, however, is a philosophical theory outside of the Scriptures, intended to account for the fact that Adam’s sin is the ground of the condemnation of our race. It introduces a doctrine of universals, of the relation of individuals to genera and species, concerning which the Scriptures teach nothing, and it makes that philosophical theory an integral part of Scripture doctrine. This is adding to the word of God. It is making the truth of Scriptural doctrines to depend on the correctness of philosophi”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 47: antecedent and not consequent to or upon inherent depravity. The view which the Reformed theologians uniformly present on this subject is, that God constituted Adam the head and representative of his race. The penalty attached to the covenant made with him, 211 and which included his posterity, was the loss of the divine favour and fellowship. The consequences of the forfeiture of the divine favour in the case of Adam were, (1.) The loss of original righteousness; (2.) The consequent corruption of his whole nature; and, (3.) Exposure to e”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 47: come upon the men of his generation. Then it is unjust that the Jews of the present day, and ever since the crucifixion of our Lord, should be scattered and peeled, according to the predictions of the prophets, for the rejection of the Messiah. Then, also, were the deluge sent in wrath upon the world, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the extermination of the Canaanites, in which thousands of children perished innocent of the offences for which those judgments were inflicted, all acts of stupendous injustice. If this principl”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 104: and afterwards by the Reformers; how the Rationalists and Supernaturalists of the last generation dealt with it; and how the modern speculative theologians have philosophized about it; and end, generally, by giving in their adhesion to some one of these modern theories more or less modified. All the while there stand the Scriptural statements untouched and unrefuted. They are allowed to go for what they are worth; but they are not permitted to control the writers own convictions. This course is adopted by different men on different princ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 43: the Latin Church on all the questions relating to sin, grace, and predestination. It having come to be generally admitted that original righteousness was a supernatural gift, it was also generally held that the effect of Adam's sin upon himself and upon his posterity was the loss of that righteousness. This was its only subjective effect. The soul, therefore, is left in the state in which it was originally created, and in which it existed, some said a longer, others a shorter, period, or no perceptible period at all, before the receipt of”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 28: Christian doctrine, they agree, first, in rejecting the Church view of the plan of salvation; they deny that Christ obeyed the law and bore its penalty vicariously, or as the substitute of sinners; they deny that his righteousness is imputed to the believer as the ground of his justification; they deny that saving faith consists in receiving and resting on the righteousness of Christ as something objective; they deny that justification is a forensic or judicial act in which God pronounces the sinner just, not on the ground of his subjecti”