Nitpickerus: Dionysius, there is a lot of disagreement even among Christian doctors about what constitutes ethical behaviour.

Dionysius: I've noticed!

Nitpickerus: How can we resolve this?

Dionysius: We need to start by understanding something about how people think with regard to ethical issues. Almost all people, whether they are aware of it or not, make decisions about what is right and wrong on the basis either of rules or of consequences.

Nitpickerus: What's the difference?

Dionysius: The rule-based person (deontologist) judges an action right or wrong on the basis of whether it conforms to a set of rules or principles. The consequence-based person (teleologist) judges an action by its consequences.

Nitpickerus: Are Christian ethics deontological or teleological?

Dionysius: There are elements of both in the Bible. Take, for example, the question 'Is adultery right?' On the one hand the seventh commandment states 'You shall not commit adultery'[1] Why not? Because God commanded it and we have a duty to obey God. This is a rule-based or deontological argument. However the writer of Proverbs takes a different approach. 'Think about the consequences of adultery' he says in effect. 'All the shame and disgrace not to mention the fury and rage of a jealous husband. Is it really worth it for a few moments of pleasure? You'll probably end up destroying your marriage and then what about the children? How can that be right?'[2] This is a consequence-based or teleological argument.

Rules and consequences?

Nitpickerus: But you haven't really answered my question. Should Christians judge things as right or wrong on the basis of rules or consequences?

Dionysius: A Christian should see that the two are intimately connected. God is a God of love. The command not to commit adultery is for the welfare of man . God is trustworthy and kind and knows what's best. It makes sense to obey his commands. If we don't then at some point there will be unpleasant consequences.[3]

Nitpickerus: So we should obey God's commands if we want things to go well for us. Doesn't that limit our freedom if we are always having to obey God?

Dionysius: No, exactly the opposite. Obedience to the rules is what makes true freedom possible. No-one would say a parent was wrong for telling her child not to touch a hot kettle, or that the law is wrong for telling us not to go through red lights. If we ignored these rules there would be chaos not freedom.

When rules and consequences conflict

Nitpickerus: It's not quite that simple is it? Often the unpleasant consequences of not following a rule are not evident at all. There don't appear to be any and the rule seems little else than a petty contrivance to stop people having fun. What should we do in these situations?

Dionysius: If unpleasant circumstances are not immediately evident we should still obey God's rules. This is common sense. We know, for example, on the authority of scientific reseach that smoking results in a higher incidence of stroke, ischaemic heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive respiratory disease and peripheral vascular disease. However these consequences are not evident to every casual observer. It still follows that unless we want to risk an early death we ought not to smoke. On the same grounds we know that prolonged sun exposure increases the incidence of melanoma. So we ought to cover up in the sun. If we trust the wisdom of scientific research to tell us about long term consequences of our actions and act accordingly then shouldn't we trust God in the same way?

Nitpickerus: So even if we can't personally see any unpleasant consequences of an action, if God's word says we shouldn't do something, we should be deontologists rather than teleologists?

Dionysius: Yes! Of course it always helps if we can see adverse consequences in advance, but if not we should still trust God's word rather than our own judgement of the situation.

Does being Christians mean hanging up our brains?

Nitpickerus: You seem to be saying that we should not use the intelligence God has given us.

Dionysius: Not at all. I'm saying that if we are intelligent then if there is conflict betweenwhat we think and what God says we should trust God and not ourselves.[4]

Nitpickerus: What if obeying God's rules means we miss out on something we strongly desire?

Dionysius: If to obtain this thing involves disobedience than we must recognize that it is only a temptation and that God must have some other solution. He wants us in this situation to be patient and to resist the temptation[5] rather than to give in and break his rules. Imagine if Jesus had succumbed to any of the immediate pleasures the devil offered him in the wilderness.[6] Even it what we desire is good the end never justifies the means. We must do God's work his way . If he desires to give us something he will do it in good time.[7] If on the other hand he gives us what we strongly desire and no disobedience is involved in receiving it we should not shrink back but grasp it with open arms. I'm sure we cause God as much grief by not receiving what he has already given us as by taking what he has not.

What if the consequences of obedience are unpleasant?

Nitpickerus: What if obeying one of God's rules will result in immediate unpleasant consequences?

Dionysius: What sort of consequences?

Nitpickerus: For example if it means we are misunderstood or ostracized by our colleagues.

Dionysius: This is no excuse for disobedience. Costly obedience is the way of the cross.[8] It necessarily follows that if we follow Christ, at times people will be offended and will misunderstand and criticise us, perhaps even accuse us of being uncaring or unloving or even unchristian. We shouldn't be surpnsed at this. After all Jesus did warn us it would happen.[9] However, we must be sure that it is our obedience to Christ and not something else in our manner that is offending.

Nitpickerus: Unloving and unchristian? Surely if we are obeying God's commands then people will recognize our goodness.

Dionysius: Some will,[10] and they may be drawn to Christ because of it, but not all. We believe Jesus was morally perfect[11] and yet some of the Jews said he was demonpossessed.[12] Furthermore he told his disciples that some of them would be killed by people who sincerely believed they were doing a service to God.[13] No Nitpickerus, if we obey God in everything we can be sure that some people will hate us as a result.[14] On the other hand if we remain popular with everyone then we should take warning! It probably means that we are compromising somewhere.[15]

Should we obey authorities?

Nitpickerus: This brings up the question of disobeying authorities. What if obedience to God's commands involves disobeying some other authority?

Dionysius: We need to be careful here because it is God himself who institutes authorities and expects us to obey them.[16] However if obeying the authority involves disobeying some command of God, then because God is the ultimate authority, our obedience to him must take precedence regardless of the consequences. For example when the Jewish authorities commanded Peter and John not to preach the Gospel they replied 'We must obey God rather than men' and went right on doing it.[17]

Nitpickerus: But surely the preaching of the Gospel has to be regarded as a special case.

Dionysius: Not at all. There are many other examples of godly civil disobedience in scripture. The Hebrew midwives when ordered by the king of Egypt to kill all male Hebrew children refused to do so and as a result God commended and rewarded them.[18] The prospect of death as a consequence of disobedience to state law did not stop Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow down to the image,[19] or Daniel persisting with public prayer.[20] They were defiant and their obedience was rewarded when God intervened miraculously on both occasions to save them.

Nitpickerus: So you're saying that if we get into trouble through obeying God then he will intervene miraculously to vindicate our stand?

Dionysius: Of course not. He may do. He sent an angel to deliver Peter and John from prison[21] but he didn't do the same for Paul.[22] God does not always intervene to save the obedient. Many of the prophets and apostles and of course Jesus himself were killed as a consequence of their obedience. The fear of death is no excuse for not obeying God even if the authorities do dictate otherwise.[23] Even the beast of Revelation 13 which is given (by God) authority over every tribe, people, language and nation is apparently not to be obeyed when he forces everyone to receive a mark in order to enable buying and selling.[24] To the contrary, those who take the mark ultimately end up in Hell as a consequence.[25] So in obeying earthly authorities we must recognize that they are both instituted by God and subject to his higher authority. We obey the authorities because he himself has instituted them.

Nitpickerus: Are then God's moral laws absolute?

Dionysius: Yes. We must obey all his commandments all the time[26] regardless of what we perceive the consequences to be. God's laws are not arbitrary do's and don'ts, they are ultimately for our good.[27]

Isn't the law null and void now?

Nitpickerus: But didn 't the teaching of Christ and the apostles do away with the law?[28]

Dionysius: This is a common misconception, the ceremonial and sacrificial law,[29] yes, but not the moral law. Christ himself says 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them...Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven'.[30] He then goes on to say that his disciples must go beyond the written Law[31] to fulfil the very principle of love that it involves. Not just no murder or adultery, but no hate[32] or lust[33] either.

Nitpickerus: But Jesus didn't expect his disciples to obey these commandments surely, just to recognize that they fell short of them.

Dionysius: Again this is a common misconception. Certainly he did expect them to recognize how exacting God's commands were and that they fell short of them, yes. However, once they were in a relationship with him they also had an obligation to obey. This is very clear from what he goes on to say later. 'Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock'.[34] Obeying God, knowing God and loving God are the same thing. He who loves God obeys God.[35] He who obeys God knows God.[36] He who knows God has eternal life.[37] Conversely if a person says that he knows God or loves God or has eternal life but doesn't obey his commands he is a liar and deceived. [38]

Doesn't the sinful nature stop us obeying?

Nitpickerus: But some might say this is impossible!

Dionysius: Exactly. Because of our fallen state we cannot naturally obey God's law. The law only makes us conscious of how far short we fall of it. This what the apostle Paul struggles with in Romans 7. 'I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.'[39]

Nitpickerus: Isn't this the whole point? In this world we are hampered in our obedience by this sinful nature that masters us at every turn.

Dionysius: No, there is a solution as Paul himself describes in the very next chapter of Romans. By the way Nitpickerus you should get to grips with Romans. People who understand this book have started revivals.

Nitpickerus: So what is the solution?

Dionysius: The solution is that God empowers us to obey him if we live according to his spirit.[40] This is what the Old Testament prophets promised would be the distinctive feature of the New Covenant. One of the purposes of the Holy Spirit was to enable people to obey God's commandments. As Ezekiel prophesied 'I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws'.[41] Paul picks this up in Romans 8 when he says that God sent Christ to be a sin offering 'in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit'[42]

The Spirit and the Law

Nitpickerus: So the Holy Spirit enables us to live the life which we otherwise were unable to live?

Dionysius: Yes

Nitpickerus: What about this sinful flesh which leads us into sin?

Dionysius: It has been crucified.[43] It is dead and buried.[44]

Nitpickerus: Really? It feels very much alive.[45]

Dionysius: Perhaps, but it no longer has any power over us to make us obey its passions and desires.[46] We can of course choose to submit to it, if we want to. Indeed we may even be deceived into thinking we have no choice but to submit to it, but this is rather foolish . Why live in bondage to our old master when we are now under new management?[47] We are no longer slaves to sin but to Christ.[48]

What did the Pharisees do wrong?

Nitpickerus: One last question relating to the Pharisees. Wasn't obedience to the law the very thing that Jesus condemned them for?

Dionysius: No. Again this is a common misconception. What Jesus said was this 'The Teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach. . . Everything they do is done for men to see'.[49] He criticised them for their hypocrisy. They taught the laws of God and quite rightly so, but did not practise them. They also substituted their own unscriptural oral traditions[50] and majored on obeying minutiae while ignoring the major commandments of mercy and justice.[51]

Nitpickerus: So then it's still worthwhile to spend time studying God's commandments so we can know how to live?[52]

Dionysius: Absolutely

Next issue...

Nitpickerus: Can we relate them to medicine?

Dionysius: Too right! We are negligent not to do so.

Nitpickerus: Where shall we start?

Dionysius: Why not start with the ten commandments[53] and work our way down?

Nitpickerus: OK!

Dionysius: We'll start the next issue with 'You shall not kill'[54]

Nitpickerus: Oh good! I've never understood how God could say that and yet command capital punishment and the slaughter of the Canaanites. Then of course there's euthanasia and abortion and in vitro fertilization and...

Dionysius: Be patient Nitpickerus. Next issue.

...to be continued