Diversity and the Sliding Ethical Scale
Essay by Tim Campbell
Diversity has always existed in the Church. There have always been issues about which people have disagreed. However, the conventional use, understanding, and application of varied opinions has undergone a radical alteration in relation to ethical relevance. Historically, persons recognized a standard of evaluation. Yet in the present age, such a standard has been thrown to the wind.
A Framework for Ethical Evaluation
R. Stanton Norman gives us perspective by exploring the level of importance assigned to doctrines. He categorizes doctrines in three categories: dogma, doctrines, and beliefs. Dogma is the non-negotiable tenets of orthodox Christianity. Doctrines are ideas that shape our concepts about the nature and ministry of the church. Beliefs are matters of importance that do not rise to the level of dogma or doctrine [1]. In relation to doctrines and beliefs, which are derived from biblical interpretations and principles, no doubt, diversity exists. However, diversity in these contexts is determined on arguable, verifiable data (that is, though there may be disagreement as to where it lies and what it is, there is a standard of reference). Lately, a fourth category has emerged, namely, “inconsequential preference.” For many, preference is synonymous with the new meaning of diversity, and refers to a broad range of opinions that has no foundation other than personal inclination.
F. Leroy Forlines in his book Biblical Ethics provides the framework for ethical evaluation. He states, “Ethics is concerned with morals and ideals. Morals are concerned with right and wrong. Ideals are concerned with good and bad” [2]. A significant part of ethical thought concerns the gray areas (“ideals” in Forlines). It is in this gray area that we attach value to favored actions and/or opinions—good in the sense of high value and not as good in the sense of lower value [3].
Let us picture these values as being on a ruler with a slide attached. We shall call this the ethical ruler, or a measurement whereby we attach value to matters that do not fit into the categories of dogma, doctrines, or beliefs. While zero would indicate the lowest value, ten would indicate the highest. We could also label these evaluations as being good (3), better (6), and best (10). Alternatively, a person might prefer to call the marks least appropriate, acceptable, and preferable. This ethical ruler is the rule by which we can evaluate preferences.
The Question of Preference: Postmodernism Masquerading as Diversity
Through the history of the Church, Christians have differed on matters of preference (or diversity). From the type of music allowed in worship to theater attendance, there have been differences of opinion that did not rise to the level of belief or doctrine. However, a value judgment was affixed to these issues of preference. For some, the value that was given to an issue might be low on the scale while others might view it as being preferable or the best action to take. The point is this: Although diversity existed, people accepted that there was a standard of evaluation, and thus a basis for a person to make the case for their viewpoint.
Yet, the current prevailing trend is to consign matters of preference as being valueless. No longer is diversity viewed as differences of opinion in relation to conflicting value judgments. Rather, they are viewed as pointless biases. The word “diversity” is now employed to prohibit discussion on matters of preference. The issue might be radical informality in the church, ecumenical associations, or the application of a particular conviction or standard. Many times the issue is musical styles in worship. In the case of music for example, whether styles of music are challenged or promoted, the discussion is expected to end when someone points out the diversity of opinion that exists in a particular ecclesial community about the matter.
As a result of such thinking, your opinion is rendered valueless because it is viewed as a preference. The slide on the ethical scale is moved to zero with no questions asked. The new meaning of diversity implies there is no possible value that can be attached to a person’s opinion. Matters of preference have no weight, meaning, or consequence. After all, who is to say what is or is not appropriate? One viewpoint is no better than another—it is just an opinion. The discussion must stop and you must accept the inevitability that there is no import attached to the subject. Such thinking is postmodernism prevailing over legitimate ethical reflection.
It is true that many viewpoints are simple matters of preference. One person might like a hamburger from McDonalds better than the one from Burger King. One might even prefer padded chairs rather than pews in church. There is a zero on the ethical scale. However, thoughtful Christians should be able to distinguish between matters of value and trivial topics. Scripture acknowledges these areas. To cite only one Scripture, Philippians 4:8 says: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Reflecting on this verse and the subject at hand, Rev. Terry Johnson states:
What do these things mean in the real world? They mean somewhat differing things in different places, no doubt. But they don’t mean nothing! The honorable, the lovely, the excellent, and the praiseworthy all can and must be discerned and identified. Judgments must be made based upon Scripture, nature, and common sense. We are expected to think it through and figure it out. This is not an easy thing to do in our day for the simple reason that our age hates virtually all distinctions. It refuses to distinguish truth from error, right from wrong, public from private, casual from formal, vulgarity from decency, and so on [4].
Apathy and Disengagement is Not the Answer
Value judgments must be made in matters of preference. The existence of diversity does not mean we should drop the subject, however. To stop the discussion on such matters would mean that we are fleeing from issues that God has deemed to be honorable, lovely, excellent, pure, and of good report (see Phil. 4:8), as being worthy of consideration and discussion. We must not fail to grapple with gray matters, which not only enrich our Christian experience, but also give glory to God. God is the God of beauty, propriety, order, and excellence. He is not just the God of black and white, but the God of the gray too. If we refuse to dialogue about these issues, we will soon find that neutrality has totally erased all ethical distinctions, and we will be at one with a valueless culture.
David Wells gives an appropriate quote with which to conclude. In addressing the process of evaluation he said:
[W]hen there are no central principles, when culture has lost its center, we are stripped of our ability to discriminate. This shows itself most importantly in the fact that for a majority in America there is no enduring right and wrong. But we also lose our ability to distinguish good from bad taste, good from bad behavior, worthy ideas from those that are unworthy. In this context all ideas become equal, as do all religions, all lifestyles. Nothing is differentiated from anything else. Nothing is better, truer, or more helpful. It all sits on the shelf, all the same. Only when we take something into our lives does it assume any importance, and the only reason it has importance is because we have chosen it. We bought into it. The value lies in the consumer’s choice, not in the idea itself [5].
If we fail to engage each other when we disagree, there can never be unity. We must think our way through matters of preference with Christian love and patience. We need to challenge each other in a genuine quest for ethical norms. We must continue the conversation, dust off our ethical slide rulers, and begin to use them again.
_______________________________________
[1] Chad Owen Brand, R. Stanton Norman, Perspectives on Church Government (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 1-2.
[2] F. Leroy Forlines, Biblical Ethics: Ethics for Happier Living (Nashville: Randall House, 1973), 8.
[3] Ibid., 126-27.
[4] Terry Johnson, “Worship and Music Today,” available at http://www.ipcsav.org/article/worship-and-music-today/, accessed on 9 December 2010.
[5] David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 111.
_______________________________________
About the Guest Contributor: Tim Campbell is a sixth generation Arkansan and a third generation Free Will Baptist. He is the executive director of the Arkansas State Association of Free Will Baptists and the president of the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council. He is also a member of the General Board of the Free Will Baptist National Association and the Executive Committee of the Free Will Baptist National Association. He graduated from the Free Will Baptist Bible College in 1990 and has completed graduate work at Liberty University. He and his wife Jane have been married for 35 years and have one son, Ben, who is a freshman at Free Will Baptist Bible College.
Recent Comments