Last week Waldron Scott wrote an excellent response to my Part III on institutional responsibility. In light of what I believe is a critical (valuable) question, I want to segue for one post to respond. This multipart series on ethical issues is concerned with child sexual abuse, particularly in settings where the abusers have been connected with ecclesiastical and civic institutions. To follow the full thread, go to http://hnkconnect.com/ethics. Next Tuesday we will continue with readers’ questions concerning institutional responsibility.

Blogs, being short essays adapted in length to the attention span of modern readers (including myself), are brief. Having said that, Waldron Scott (for whom I have the utmost of respect) has raised a valid concern when he writes that I have inadequately resorted to the phrase “Scripture as a whole” to back up my theological assertions as opposed to referencing specific chapter-and-verse.

I agree with him that this phrase is akin to handing readers eels with which to wrestle, particularly as Scriptural consistency is often difficult to verify on even the broadest of issues. This difficulty becomes even greater with specific matters that do not appear overtly in biblical texts, not the least of which is how the modern church is to deal with child sexual abuse victims and their predators, particularly under the church’s own oversight.

Since, he says correctly, I am “arguing forthrightly as a Christian,” he believes it helpful to cite or quote specific Bible texts to substantiate my propositions. I agree, my friend, and promise to commit myself to revisiting and reviewing these propositions I have listed in the previous post in order to anchor them in the Biblical witness. For the immediate future, I beg his indulgence and will continue with the readers’ questions related to the current topic. I do not want to do injustice to either thread.

But, first, please allow me to explain to all readers the foundation on which I base my ethical thinking. As I’ve posted on my website, ethics, in my understanding, is living out what a person believes. As James, the New Testament writer states, “show me how you live and I’ll tell you what you believe” (which is how I interpret his “I will show you my faith by what I do” in James 2:18, NIV).

In this understanding, all adequately mentally and emotionally developed human beings have beliefs and worldviews (even if the most rudimentary) through which they perceive what is appropriate behavior. They then act accordingly. This “acting accordingly” is what we call ethics. They may or may not be able to articulate their belief system or their ethics, but they are ethical in that they are living out that which they believe to be true about reality. Either their ethics or their worldview/beliefs may be faultily based or inconsistent so as to make them behave in ways that are socially or theologically unacceptable, but they are still ethical creatures living out what they believe.

If, for example, I somewhere deep inside myself think of other people as mere extensions of my own person (regardless of what I say I think), then I will treat them as appendages, giving no more thought to them than I would my middle left toe. Socially and morally we call this kind of person an infant, if that person has been recently born, or we call this kind of person a narcissist if he or she is an adult in chronological years and has adequate mental capability. This person treats people, as we all do, according to what he or she believes is true about other people.

I am, as Waldron Scott writes, a “forthright” and unapologetic Christian, by which I mean that I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that I attempt to live my life accordingly. Therefore, to the best of my understanding and ability, I follow the teachings and model of Jesus and his followers as set down in what the Church historic and universal has canonized as the Bible.

I must be honest that I tend to shy away from chapter-and-verse referencing except in the most extensive of explanations because of the widespread scriptural abuse known as proof texting, which in the end can be weak in both proving and convincing (its ultimate aim). But I do see in the Christian canon of Scriptures a biblical witness that is able to inform our belief system and therefore our living out of that belief system. No one individual is seamlessly consistent in living out what he or she believes. Nor are any of us equally consistent in basing our belief system on the Bible or whatever framework we use as a basis for our worldviews. Certainly many influences go into our thinking, even our thinking about how in the first place we interpret the Bible.

A good ethicist will anchor his or her thoughts in his or her framework clearly enough for others to follow the entire process. It is these anchors for which my friend, Waldron Scott, appeals. Such a process, however, is far too cumbersome to go through every time, and thus my lazy resort to “Scripture as a whole.” I do believe, to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16, that all of the canon of Scripture “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” or, in other words, good ethical living. Some biblical parts may need to be seen through the light of other parts. Some parts may be more ethically useful than others. But the canon, properly interpreted and digested, does speak to us “as a whole,” or so I believe. Perhaps by “as a whole” I mean not so much that its specific texts are without contradiction or other problems, but that together and “correctly handled” (2 Timothy 2:15) there are grand themes and prophetic messages we do well to heed if we are to follow Jesus Christ as Lord.

In my forthcoming book, Night Shift, I devote a chapter to what I call a guide-of-life grid, by which I believe we can determine whether our missional actions are ethically appropriate. As I explain in that chapter, there is a trinity of what I call witnesses – the Spirit, the Word and the Church – that collectively provide us principles by which to live our lives. These principles act like coordinates steering us through life. In the book, I offer four coordinates which I believe form our ethical guide for living in what I like to call the Age of the Spirit and for helping us fulfill our mission in life both as individuals and as the corporate people of God. These four coordinates are character, community, compassion, and creativity.

When I look at complex problems, say, in regards to how to deal with Boy Scout commanders who abuse young scouts, or in answering tough questions such as how the church should respond to victims victimized in their care, my starting point is those witnesses and these coordinates. As I hope to show some day soon, the propositions I stated in the previous post flow out of this framework.