Moral Relativism in Modern Christian Ethics Debate
Moral relativism, in the context of modern Christian ethics, refers to the idea that moral principles are not absolute or universally binding but are instead dependent on individual, cultural, or historical perspectives. This concept often stands in tension with traditional Christian ethical frameworks, which typically assert the existence of objective moral truths rooted in God's character and commands.
The Bible itself provides a foundation for understanding moral distinctions, often contrasting good and evil, righteousness and wickedness. For instance, Proverbs 11:10 highlights the "relative moral worth of good and bad men," suggesting an inherent difference in their actions and character [6]. Similarly, Philippians 4:8 exhorts believers to focus on things that are "true," "honest," "just," "pure," "lovely," and "of good report," implying a standard against which these qualities can be measured [1]. These passages suggest that certain behaviors and characteristics are inherently virtuous, while others are not.
However, the application and interpretation of these moral principles can lead to complexities that some might mistakenly associate with relativism. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 12:1–15:13, outlines the "moral and ethical demands of the Good News," emphasizing that God desires not just forgiveness but also the transformation of lives [7]. This transformation involves a response to God's gift of salvation, leading to moral duties. Yet, Paul also addresses situations where believers hold differing convictions, particularly concerning "people who are weak in faith and people who are strong in faith" (Romans 14:1–15:13) [7].
One significant area where differing interpretations arise is in matters of conscience and practice that are not explicitly forbidden by scripture. Adam Clarke, commenting on Romans 14:10, discusses the tension between a "Christian Jew, observing the rites of the Mosaic law," and a "Christian Gentile, who does not think himself bound by this law" [2]. Clarke notes that the "superstitious are prone to judge, and those who are not superstitious are prone to despise," highlighting a conflict arising from differing understandings of religious obligations rather than a rejection of moral truth itself [2]. This scenario illustrates that while core moral principles may be absolute, their application in specific cultural or personal contexts can vary, leading to a need for charity and understanding rather than judgment.
Jesus himself challenged conventional understandings of purity and morality. In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus teaches that "moral issues involve the heart," not external practices like eating with clean or unclean hands or consuming certain foods [3]. one tradition states that "what a person eats (clean or unclean food) affects only the digestive tract, so it has no bearing on the moral issues of the soul" [3]. This teaching shifts the focus from external ritualistic adherence to internal moral disposition, emphasizing that true defilement comes from within, from the "heart," which is the "seat of moral decision making" [3]. This does not endorse moral relativism but rather redefines the locus of moral purity, moving it from outward observance to inward character.
The New Testament also addresses practical ethical dilemmas within the early Christian community. Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 6:6 against "brother goeth to law with brother" underscores the importance of internal arbitration for disputes among believers, viewing external lawsuits as a "scandal" [5]. This suggests a communal ethical standard that prioritizes reconciliation and internal resolution over secular legal processes, reflecting a distinct moral framework for the Christian community.
However, the concept of moral relativism is often contrasted with the idea of objective moral standards. The Apostle Paul warns against a future where "men" within the professing church will be "money-loving," "boasters," and exhibit other vices, likening this to a "relapse into virtual heathendom" [8]. This implies a clear distinction between virtuous and vicious behaviors, suggesting that certain actions are inherently wrong regardless of individual or cultural acceptance. The "love of money," for example, is identified as a "root of all evil" [8].
Rabbinic thought also grapples with the appearance of moral ambiguity. Rashi, commenting on Ecclesiastes 8:14, observes that "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" [4]. This observation highlights the difficulty of judging moral worth based solely on outward circumstances or reputation. The Mesilas Yeshorim further advises 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[quences]" [4]. This perspective cautions against superficial moral judgments, advocating for a deeper understanding of actions and their underlying intentions and outcomes, which is distinct from asserting that morality itself is relative.
Sources
- Philippians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Philippians 4:8: Summary of all his exhortations as to relative duties, whether as children or parents, husbands or wives, friends, neighbors, men in the intercourse of the world, &c. true--sincere, in words. honest--Old English for "seemly," namely, in action; literally, grave, dignified. just--towards others. pure--"chaste," in relation to ourselves. lovely--lovable (compare Mar 10:21; Luk 7:4-5). of good report--referring to the absent (Phi 1:27); as "lovely" refers to what is lovable face to face. if there be any virtue--"whatever virtue there is"”
- Romans (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Romans 14:10: But why dost thou - Christian Jew, observing the rites of the Mosaic law, judge - condemn thy brother - the Christian Gentile, who does not think himself bound by this law? Or why dost thou - Christian Gentile, set at nought thy Christian Jewish brother, as if he were unworthy of thy regard, because he does not yet believe that the Gospel has set him free from the rites and ceremonies of the law? It is a true saying of Mr. Heylin, on this verse: The superstitious are prone to judge, and those who are not superstitious are prone to despise. We shall all stand before”
- Mark (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Mark 7:14: 7:14-23 Jesus’ second argument against the Pharisees was a proverb that Jesus told the crowd. Later, in the privacy of a home, Jesus explained it to his disciples (7:17-23). It concerns moral distinctions about eating. Eating affects the digestive system, but moral issues involve the heart. The heart is a metaphor for the seat of moral decision making. How a person eats (with clean or unclean hands) or what a person eats (clean or unclean food) affects only the digestive tract, so it has no bearing on the moral issues of the soul. To help his later readers understan”
- 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”
- 1 Corinthians (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on 1 Corinthians 6:6: Brother goeth to law with brother - One Christian sues another at law! This is almost as great a scandal as can exist in a Christian society. Those in a religious community who will not submit to a proper arbitration, made by persons among themselves, should be expelled from the Church of God.”
- Proverbs (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Proverbs 11:10: The last may be a reason for the first. Together, they set forth the relative moral worth of good and bad men.”
- Romans (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Romans 12:1: 12:1–15:13 This section of Romans sets out the moral and ethical demands of the Good News. God’s gift of salvation in Christ requires a response. God is not satisfied simply with forgiving our sin; he wants to transform our lives. Most of what Paul teaches concerning the moral duties of believers is paralleled in other letters. However, it also seems clear that he has chosen issues pertinent to the situation in Rome—most notably, the dispute between people who are weak in faith and people who are strong in faith (14:1–15:13). 12:1 Your bodies refers to the whole p”
- 2 Timothy (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 2 Timothy 3:2: men--in the professing Church. Compare the catalogue, Rom 1:29, &c., where much the same sins are attributed to heathen men; it shall be a relapse into virtual heathendom, with all its beast-like propensities, whence the symbol of it is "a beast" (Rev 13:1, Rev 13:11-12, &c.; Rev 17:3, Rev 17:8, Rev 17:11). covetous--Translate, "money-loving," a distinct Greek word from that for "covetous" (see on Col 3:5). The cognate Greek substantive (Ti1 6:10) is so translated, "the love of money is a (Greek, not 'the') root of all evil." boasters--empty boas”