A question of ethics

By Beth Keith.

In March 2005 I was asked to lead a discussion on ethics with a group of young adults at a large evangelical church. The discussion highlighted a discomfort that the majority of participants found with an ethical framework based on objective and universal principles, a framework promoted in the church they were members of. The relevance of this discussion became more pertinent over the next few years, for whilst the church continued to grow, a significant proportion of those young adults left.

During this discussion the group split broadly into three types, which I’ve called the abstract reasoners, the
relational moralists and the principled oscillators.

The abstract reasoners, who were the smallest group, defended the notion of abstract ethics. They theologically mirrored a typical evangelical truth-based framework, and found the very notion of employing relational cues in moral decision making offensive, anxiety inducing and contradictory to both their faith and reason. They felt at ease in the framework promoted by the church, which promised to provide true moral choices that could fit everyone at any time. They were fearful of a relative framework and anxious that the inclusion of influences from specific situations would create conflicting moral choices.

The relational moralists were immediately more at ease with employing a range of influences in making moral decisions. These included relational cues, biblical references, experiences, doctrine and other fields which they brought from their own background, such as psychotherapy or genetics. They exhibited an intuitive relational moral practice by putting values, discovered through relational cues, into practice.

Surprisingly some members of the group seemed to move between a rationalistic and universal view to an experiential and relational view. These principled oscillators swung from one approach to the other to the point of contradiction, and at times sounded quite confused. When they talked of ethics using their inherited faith language they talked of revealed truth to be applied to differing situations. However, when they talked about their real life practice in making decisions, to their own surprise they described a different process. The use of faith-based language directed them into an objective framework, whereas when they discussed their own moral decision making processes, their own language allowed for a more plural or relational approach. They were starting to move away from an abstract ethical mode they felt uncomfortable with, but had not yet become conversant with other more relational ethical practices.

On reflection it appeared that the ethical inclinations of significant numbers of the group were at odds with the practices of the church they were members of. Three years later, of those present at this discussion, only those who had endorsed the abstract framework remained members. All the relational moralists and principled oscillators had left, some leaving the Christian faith altogether, others still identifying themselves as Christian but with serious questions about Church, and a few left to engage with new forms of Church and mission.(1)

The expression of faith embodied by the church was too rigid, too controlled and leader-led for many of the young adults I spoke to. Whilst this style of leadership in part contributed to the growth of the church, it left many people short changed over time. Perhaps a less controlled, multi-congregational approach which allowed for variation in belief and practice, would have enabled the members to move beyond the inflexible faith approved by the church, and in doing so create safe spaces for them to worship and explore.

Many of the current young pioneer ordinands are coming from similar large churches. Will they too go on to plant rationalistic and theologically rigid large congregations or be trained to develop a variety of contextually influenced communities of faith?(2)

(1) Some related issues appear in Church Next, Eddie Gibbs and Ian Coffey, IVP 2001

(2) A wider indicator of a move towards an increasingly contextualised approach is the shift in book style from Church Next to Emerging Churches, both Eddie Gibbs.