The Christian Ethic - Responsible Freedom, Part I
Matthew 22:34-40; Galatians 5:13-15

Septomber 29, 1968

Rev. John Ii. Buchanan

"As the Russian armies drove westward to meet the Americans and the British at the
Elbe, a Soviet patrol picked up a Mrs. Bergmeier foraging for food for her three
children. Unable even to get word to the children, and without any clear reason for
it, she vas taken off to a prison camp in the Ukraine. Her husband had bocn captured
in the Bulge and-taken to a P.0O.W. camp in Wales.

"thon he returned to Berlin, he spent weeks and weeks rounding up his children;
two wore found in a detention home run by the Russians, and the oldest, Hans, fif-
teen, wac found hiding in a cellar near the Alexander Platz. Their mother's where-
abouts renained a mystery, but they never stopped searching. She more than anything
else was needed to reknit them as a family in that dire situation of hungor, chaos
and fcar.

"eanvshile, in the Ukraine, Mrs. Bergmeier learned through a sympathetic commandant
that hor husband and family were trying to keep together and find her. But the
rules allowed them to release her for only two reasons: (1) illness necding medical
facilities beyond the camp's, in which case she would be sent to a Sovict hospital
elsewhere, and (2) pregnancy, in which case she would be returned to Germany as a
liability. ;

"She tured things over in her mind and finally she asked a friendly Volga German
camp guard to impregnate her, which he did. Her condition being medically vorivied,
she was sent back to Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms, even
when she told them how she had managed it. When the child was born, thoy loved him
more than all the rest, on the view that little Dietrich had done more for them than
anybody.

‘hon it was time for him to be christened, they took him to the pastor on a Sunday
afternoon. After the ceremony they sent Dietrich home with the children and sat down
in the pastor's study to ask him whether they were right to feel as they cid about
Mrs. Dergneier and Dietrich. Should they be grateful to the Volga German? Had Mrs.
Bergneicr done a good and right thing?" (Joseph Pletcher, Situation Bihics, West—
minster, 1956, p. 164 ff)

That rather colorful ethical dilemma is cited in a very controversial book by
Professor Joseph Fletcher entitled Situation Bthics, The New Morality. It summarizes
the direction Christian Ethics has been taking for the past decade or so. It is a
controversial book because it probes far deeper than we are accustomed to going when
we attempt to articulate a given "morality" or code of ethics. How do you judge Mrs.
Bergmcior? If, in her dilemma, you can find a handle, something to call absolutely
good, or absolutely bad, you have, in fact, an ethic - a system by which you know how
to make moral decisions. If her predicament bothers you: if you are torn between
what you think you ought to believe and what you want to believe, you are onc of the
many sonsitive Christians participating in the great ethical debate of ovr soneration.

The debate may be summarized as follows:"Is there a list of acts that are always, under
all circumstances, bad? Or is 'morality' an approach to different situations that
requires an individual decision every time?"

Christian Ethics has always been a troublesome topic; in fact, the one area about
which more has been written with less agreement than any other. The problem began
when Jesus found himself in disagreement with the going morality of his oym day. That
morality wag encased in the Holy Judaic Law, a very complex legal system which had oa
a rule for every possible human situation. It is helpful to remember that the Jews
did not differentiate between "civil crime" and “religious sin". There was one law.

On occasion Jesus broke one of those rules — to the dismay and chagrin of the
Phariscese Finally, they pinned him down: “Master, which is the greatest commandment
in the Law?" He answered - "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind.” And "Love
your neighbor as yourself." But he didn't stop there. Instead he mado matters
infinitely more complex by adding, "Everything in the law and prophets hangs on these
two commondments."' Jesus was not opposed to the Law, but he was saying that morality—- #

Soe

the Christian Ethic if you will - is something deeper, more personal and individualis—
tic than can ever be reduced to a code or legal system.

Several years later, the Apostle Paul fought the battle all over again, and in
the procoss wrote down some guidelines that have to be considered in eny investi-
gation of Christian Ethics today. Everywhere he went with the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
Paul cncountered strong resistance from Jewish Christians. Their position was that a
Christian must first accept and obey the Jewish law. This is the issue behind his
letter to tho Galatians. To them he proposed a new freedom from the law ~ the
Christian life is lived by grace and faith. The law won't save you; Jesus Christ hag
already done that; live your lives as men who are already saved. Of covrsc, a reaction
set in. If men are already saved by Christ; if there is nothing the lay can do to
help them — why bother with law at all? Why not just do whatever you please and chalk
it up to Christian Freedom? That is precisely what happened within the fledgling
Christian communities at Corinth and Galatia. Under the guize of Christian freedom,
men end women wore living without ony moral restraints and their behavior — as Paul
describod it in his letters ~ must have been something else again.

It is out of this context, then, that we hear Paul say, "You, my fricnds, were
called to be free men; only do not tur your freedom into license for your lower
naturc, but be servants to one another in love. For the whole law can be sunmca up
in a singlc commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Gal. 5:13-14)

The Christian movement was not yet twenty years old and questions were being
raised with which we are still struggling today. How does a Christian mako cthical
decisions? What is good? What is evil? What is the ultimate, foundational norm
for devising a code of ethics? Or is there any such thing? You see, these are the
very same questions which Mrs. Bergmeier's predicament raises for us — cuocetions
which you ond I are a little reluctant to answer.

The licw Testament is wrongly used when men attempt to squeeze a code of behavior
out of it. It's just not there. But there are guidelines and there is a theology,

a specific starting point, and it is this: men are called to be free, free from

petty restrictions to their behavior. But this freedom operates under the umbrella of
love and responsibility for other men. That is whors any Christian ethic has to begin.
Paul, for instance, felt himself to be, for the first time in his life, gloriously

free from the restrictiveness of the Jewish law. And at the same time hc was preaching
freedom he was admonishing his people to be slaves to each other.

There arc today three basic ethical positions, all three reflected somoulicre by
someone claiming to be a Christian. The first and most obvious is the position of
legalism. Adherents of this position hold that there are certain things wrich are
bad, that thoy always have been bad and always will be bad. .To shift our semantics,
Sin ics a rather specific list of acts which a Christian must never commit. The content
of tho Christian ethic for these people is eternal, it never changes. Good is good;
evil is cvil, and that's that. As a by-product, people who hold this position morally
are usually inclined to grant the civil law the same aura of sanctity. Tho law is to
be obcyed regardless of the situation or the dictates of Conscience. Gonerally, this
position has been characteristic of institutional Christianity - both Roman Catholic
and Protestant. F

The socond position is ‘isd outi-nomianism — anti-legalism, no lawz, cr moral
anarchy. Only the very courageous or the very foolish attempt to articvlate this
position publically, although sociologists are now warning us that it is, in fact,
the position of people today who make decisions on the basis of nothing other than the
expedicncy of the moment.

The third position is that of the Situationist. For him, his decision, his behavior,
is going to depend on several things, first among them the particularitics of the
immediate situation. To this position the Christian brings certain guidelines, de~
fining what is generally good and what is not. At this point, allow mc to yicld to
the man who stirred up the ethical pot initially - Bishop Robinson:

: 5 er FESR SS SLL LL, SL cre art
' yo P > 4

=—j3-

Whe Christian will be the first to confess that Christ does not supply him with
an ethical code, any more than he supplies him with a legal systom, or a polity, or
an economy. For it was not Jesus' purpose to provide any of these ~- Jecus' purpose
was to coll men to the Kingdom of God, to subject everything in their lives to the
overriding, unconditional claim of God's uvterly gracious yet utterly demanding rule
of rightcous love. And men could not acknowledge this claim without accepting the
constraint of the same sacrificial, unselfregarding agape over all their relations
with cach other. I+ is this undeviating claim, this inescapable constrain’, which
provides. the profoundly constant clement in the distinctively Chri “fn response in
every age oy clime. For it produces in Christians, however different or divorsely
placed, a direction, a cast, a style of life, which is recognizably and gloriously
the same. Yet what precisely they must do to embody the claim will differ with
every contury, group and individual." (J.A.T. Robinson, Christian Morals Today,
Westminster, 1963, p. 12--13) .

I apologize for so long a quote - but it would have takon me much longer to say
it -— not nearly so well. Several observations are in order. When we are discussing
Christian Ithics we are not talking about a Code at all. We are talking about a |
direction, a stylo of life that wili differ in each ege ~ in cach sitmation. In this
systom there is no absolute at all -- except the unconditional imperative to love. It
is anything but moral anarchy -- it is the extremely difficult, extremely responsible
position of doing in every situation that which is loving. It is not new. It is f
called the “New Morality” but I hope I have been able to demonstrate that it has its .
roots in the behaviow and teachings of Jesus Christ himself. In the sonse that it
will alwoys contrast with neat, carefully establisned, codes of behavior it will 1
appear to be new. But it igs not an invention of the 1960‘ nr.

Above all clse, it is the most difficult, most demanding position of all. You see,
within all of us there appears to be an inherent need to live by rules, rules that
will novor change. In our religion, we would prefer to be told «vecifically what is
good and what is off limits. We would prefer to relinquish moral responsibility,
and be told what to do and what not to do. Crganized religion has alwoye oxploited
this nocd, and there is no better example than tne current birth contro] controversy.
Down through the centuries Christian men have been convinually guilty of trying to
flako the Gospel of Jesus Christ perform in this manner

The legend of the Grand Inquisiter in Dostoevsky's great novel, The Brothers
Karamozov, expressed that great truth about human nature. It is a story sbout the
terrible burden of freedom (op, cit. pp, 81-32)

HChrist returned to earth, and the Spanish Inquisitor, recognizing hia in a crowd
watching 2 religious procession, ha him arrosted at once. In the dead of night,
he visited the Christ in secret, embarrassed, trying to cxplain that most people do
not want frcoedom, they want secs" " Tf you really love people, he argued, you make
them happy, not free. Frecdom is danger, openness, They want law, not rosponsibility;
they want tho neurotic comfort of rules, 10% the spiritual open-placea of decision
making. ‘They prefer absolutes to rolativi tics. The Ghrist, he says, must not come
back again to start all of that old business avout freedom and grace and commitment
and responsibility. Let things vc, just let the Church handle them. Let him please go
away."

Of course, Christ will not go away. All who hear his Gospel, are called to new
lives of responsible frecdom. We are called to be respousible — that ic - rosponsive
in each and every situation that demands a moral decision. [ules do not rospond—, 4
they arc just rules, We are called to do what is good ~ what is loving -- from what we Hy
have loarncd about the will of God to co what corresponds to that Holy till. ,

That is, Jesus Christ has called us to lives of freedom. May wo hunbly and
prayorfully live that freedom responsibly.

ext
The Christian Ethic ~ Responsible Freedom, Part II

October 13, 1968
Matthew 5:17-20;Romand 13:7--9

By way of introduction, allow me to presume to play both parts in a quick game
of “word-association"., Morals ~ sex; ethics - law; Christian ethics - 2 restrictive
code. lliow you may not have responded exactly in that manner. But most people would.
Morals have something to do with sex;.Ethics means the law which defincos behavioral
limitations: the Christian ethic is a very specific and very rigid behavioral code.
This sermon is dedicated to erasing those three responses -- (conditional reflexes would be
a bettor description) and replacing them with three new ideas. 1) that morality means
the way you live your life in all respects, including but not exclusively the sexual
aspect. 2) that ethics is a total approach to decision making situations. 3) that
Christian ethics indicates a positive activity - not a code of restrictions.

As some, but not all, of you will recall, this is the second and concluding
part of a project I began two Sundays ago. Because of this arrangement it will be
necessary to go back over some of the ground we covered on that occasion. In the ensuing
two wock period, several of you have apoken to me about the sermon, nearly oll. about
the opening illustration. lirs. Bergmeier and her perplexing moral dilomma are being
discussed and will be remembered far more than anything I subsequently had to say
about Christian Ethics, and that is significant. The fact that you are talking about
ethics in terms of a specific set of circumstances, and not a clear--cut moral law,
indicates that Ethics-is a total approach to specific situations: that is to say,
Christian Ethics are situational.

On occasion, Jesus Christ, himself, broke the moral law. Paul taught that
men were free from the obsessive strictures of Jewish legalism and throughout the New
Testament the ethical-moral thrust is on doing what is loving in every situation, and
not on an ethical code.

The New Testament teaches that the legalistic approach to morality con be,
and often is, a dangerous exercise. In the New Testament slavish obedience to the law
is seen of a denial of God given freedom, an abrogation of moral responsibility. Further-
more, much of the New Testament - namely the letters of Paul-- was written for the
express purpose of telling men that they were saved by the Grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and not by obeying the religious laws.

In any case, I believe we can say that the situational approach to ethics is
not new; that it comes from the New Testament and that it is relevant and helpful in
every age. If, at this point, you don't know what 1 mean by the situational approach,
let me illustrate. H. Richard Niebuhr used the following image to talk about moral
responsibility: "...picture the moral agent as a motor car driver traveling along ths
road and making forty decisions a minute. If he and his passetvers are to reach their
destination in safety he must know the rules of the road, and he mist !mow where he is
trying to go, but he mast also be able to handle his car, judge the condition of the
highway, guess what the other drivers are going to do, respond quickly to their actions
and kcep in mind the effect his responses will have on them. You may obey all the
rules in the highway code and still have an accident, you may have to breal one of
the rules to avoid having an accident, you will always have tc keep responding to what
is going on and what you think others are doing, and you mist always remomber the
effect your actions will have on your neighbors." (H. Richard Niebuhr, ‘The Responsible
Self", Ilew York, Harper and Row, 1963, pp. lO8fr)

That very clearly underscores the point I want to make by way of introduction
this morning: that is - that the morally responsible person takes the law into account,
but that he is ultimately responsible for the welfare of others - in this case his
passcngers; and that the decisions he makes are going to be determined by the par~
ticularities of the immediate situation. That is what the situational approach is all
about.

—5-

One of the problems, however, is in not distinguishing very clearly between
situationolism as an ethical approach and Christian situationalism. This needs to be
done unambiguously and immediately. There is currently in this nation a very real
concern for law and order. It is without a doubt the most volatile issue before the
American body politic. And behind the very real concern for law and order, I believe,

is a fecling that the old, accepted moral standards are being eroded by a kind of anarchy—

or Yanything goes" mentality. We are threatened and disturbed by what we think we see
happening to the so-called moral fibre of the nation; that is, the complete discarding
of all laws, all moral guidelines, all accepted standards of what is right and wrong.

Personally, I don't believe things are quite so bad as they seem, and I would
suggest that we are the victims of some very irresponsible exploitation in the
campaign propoganda issuing forth around this issue. The point is that if the generally
acecpicd moral standards of this nation are being discarded, this is not at all the
same thing as Christian situationalism. The Christian ethic is not anarchistic. It
does not operate in a vacuum, and any attempt to saddle it with the Berkely Free Speech
Movement or "free love" is patent nonsense.

Any civilization that is going to survive for long must have a lav that is
respected and obeyed by all the people. The law is a kind of moral net around the
culture. In our situation Chritians are called to help create the law, criticize it
when thoy feel it is inadequate, try to change it, and to give it respect ond support.
But for the Christian the law — any law - is never infallible. That is important. That
is why the Gospel of Jesus Christ has historically provided the most radical threat to
all forms of totalitarianism. For the Christian, the law is a teacher -— but love is
the master. For the Christian rules and codes and moral standards arc necessary and
helpful. But the only unchanging moral demand is the imperative to love. To the
situational ethical approach the Christian brings his ultimate commitmen’ to do what
is loving and that makes all the difference in the world.

ffo move from the general to the specific, it is apparent that if you're going
to talk about morality, sooner or later you've got to get around to dcaling with sex.
"A morals charge’ ~ is synonymous in our idiom with a sex offense. ‘Loose morals" is
an idiom which means loose sexual morals. That is how we think, and while i+ is an
obvious indicator of our neurotic sexuality it is the area of greatest concern. After
all, there are other areas in life in which men act either morally or inmorally. But
we arc literally “hung up" on sex -— so let's attempt to deal with it.

Yhet, for instance, does the Christian situational approach say about pre—
marital sex? That's what really bothers us, isn’t it? For the sake of being clear,
let's first look at what two other ethical positions say about the quostion.

jhe traditional legalistic approach says flatly, "Don't; premarital sex is
wrong under any and all conditions; it is inherently sinful, immoral, and that's that!"
This position is as significant for what it doesn't say and for what it implies, as it
is for its forthright simplicity. First, it doesn't deal at all with scx us a moral,
good human activity. All it says is that sex is bad outside of marriage - which means
that sex is good inside marriage — and that is simply not true. Marriage alone does
not make sex good: in fact, sex probably destroys more marriages than any other single
problem. The law — the moral stendard here - is not so much wrong, as it is incomplete.
Secondly, it implies that there is somthing just a little bit wrong with human
sexuality, per se. And that feeling, which so pervades our moral climate, is un-
healthy, unscriptural and destructive.

The pure situationist position, on the other hand, is that if you fceol ilike doing
it, and if there is nothing in the particular situation that makes it wadvisable, go
right chead. Needless to say, the Christian doesn't buy that either.

The Christian position here, as elsewhere, is - "Do what is loving: do what is
responsible for everyone concerned." And it is my strongest convicticn tot on this
basis, you can build the very best case that premarital sex is not a loving thing
at all, it is not responsible because someone is going to get hurt - if nov physically
then criotionally; there are many other people involved, and finally —- mitil two
people are married - they are not responsible for each other regardless of the intensity

=

of their feelings, and that only within the loving responsibility of legal marriage are
they freo to enjoy the good but risky gift of sex.

Sex is neither the Alpha nor the Omega of man's moral behavior, but this is
how the Christian would approach that particular question. You see, tho Christian
situational approach encourages us to be free and responsible in a way 2 law cannot
provide. Donald Mathers puts it this way, "It (situational ethics) is continuously
urging the need to be responsive to the needs of others and the actions of others, and
the necd to take into account the response that these others will make to our actions...
It does not give you simple answers to the question "What ought I to do?" If things
turn out badly it denics you the comfort of believing that at least what you did was the
right thing. But it does emphasize in an important and healthy way the fact that we
are all our brothers' keepers and all responsible for each." (The Reformed and
Presbyterian World, March, 1968, p.12)

Joseph Fletcher puts it even more graphically. The legalist says in offeot:

"Do wnat is right and let the chips fall where they may." The situational decision
maker says right back at his metaphysical rival: "Ha! Whether what you are doing is
right or not depends precisely upon where the chips fall." (op.cit. p.144)

So much for the new Morality. I don't presume that your questions arc ariswered.
In fact, I would hope that questions have been raised and left for you to wrestle with.
But the title of this effort is The Christian Ethic,and frankly we have hardly begun
to plumb the depths. We have not even mentioned the most important observation of
all ~ that the Christian Ethic is basically and fundamentally something people do — and
not a sei of behavioral restrictions,

You heard, this morning, from Matthew's Gospel. Jesus was discussing the
relationship of the law to individual behavior in the presence of the Pharisees — men
who zealously obeyed every bit of the law. This is what he said, "...unless your
rightcousnoss exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never ontor the
kingdom of heaven." That is the radical nature of the Christian Ethic. Tor, you
gee, it is quite impossible to be more rightcous then a perfect keeper of the law -
unless righteousness, goodness, morality, if you will ~ is something that gocs beyond
the law. .
Jesus was his own interpreter. He told the parable of the Good Samaritan and
in that memorable story, you will remember, the righteous man does his werl outside
the franework of the law, going farther than the rules demanded, giving of himself for
the welfare of the wounded traveller.

Let's begin to think of Christian Ethics in these terms: that is, in terms not
of what we are refraining from doing, but what it is we are doing in the vorld for
the sake of Jesus Christ. Having spent two weeks talking about Situation Lthics, I
would bo happy to forget the whole thing and focus on the uniqueness of ‘tho Christian
faith - the joyful life of love lived for the sake of others.

The life of the Christian is a happy sharing of a great love, a life that is
moral to the degrec that it is loving and helping and healing and serving.

The world needs that kind of witness. Our community, : our state and our
nation need men and women with the commitment and courage to ‘be moral in this
aggressive , uniquely Christ-like manner.

lay God grant us that courage.

Amen.