Sunday, December 27, 2015

Interfaith Marriage





 Part 1.) Ethical Question - Interfaith Marriage: Mixed Blessing or Forbidden Fruit?
 Is it ethical for Christians to enter into interfaith marriages? In other words, are marriages between Christians and those who adhere to different religions moral? According to an extensive survey conducted by Pew Research Center, many American Christians believe they are.[1] As of 2014 the United States remains to be “home to more Christians than any other country in the world, with “roughly seven-in-ten” Americans identifying themselves with some branch of the Christian faith.[2] However, the expression of that faith has changed radically over the last few decades, particularly when it comes to marriage. According to the survey, as of 2010, “nearly four-in-ten,” or 39% of Americans report that they are in interfaith marriages,[3] while those married since 2000 are “about twice as likely” to be in interfaith marriages as those before 1960.[4]
When interfaith marriages occur, the church often becomes the first point of conflict for couples, the proving ground where issues of faith readily become apparent.[5] For interfaith couples, wedding planning can quickly turn from romance and flowers, to relational turmoil, religious switching or the rejection of the church altogether.[6] These crisis points often happen when Pastors refuse to officiate or co-officiate interfaith wedding ceremonies.[7] Although the majority of conservative Christian Pastors refuse to preside over interfaith unions on Biblical grounds, they are faced with the unenviable task of guarding their convictions without driving away their congregations, the religiously unaffiliated and those of differing religions.[8]

2.) A Scriptural Response - Till Death Do We Part
             In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon, the biblical figure with perhaps the most interfaith marriages of any other, declares that “there is nothing new under the sun.”[9] This can certainly be said of the controversy of interfaith marriage. From Genesis to Revelation we find these unions taking place, literally since time began. So why do conservative pastors feel so strongly about this issue? Theologian James Jordan, refers to interfaith marriage as yet another “fall of humanity,” the earliest mention of which is found in Genesis 5:1–6:8, a passage often attributed to angels marrying women.[10] Jordan sees the passage as the record of the fall of the Sethites, a lineage which is cut off in scripture.[11] Why? According to Jordan, “The Sethites fell through the sin of intermarriage. Instead of witnessing to the Cainites, they joined them. As a result, they were cast from the world in the Flood. This was a fall with reference to the believer-unbeliever relationship.”[12] The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, a standard Christian reference book, reiterates, “These intermarriages between the chosen line of Seth and the seed of the ungodly world contributed to an ever-increasing wickedness” which inevitably resulted in the flood and the destruction of mankind, save those on the ark.[13]

            The connection between intermarriage, idolatry and apostasy is a common theme in Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, “the problem of idolatry arose again and again, largely through royal intermarriage and alliances with the households of neighboring rulers.”[14] The book of Judges begins with Israel’s intermarriage with idolaters and their joining them to serve “Balaam and the groves,” forgetting God and doing “evil in the sight of the Lord.” In response to their apostasy they are sold into captivity. Perhaps one of the more famous cases of an interfaith union, involves King Ahab who is recorded as doing “more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.” This “evil” is described in Judges 31-33 as follows, “And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and observed Baal, and worshipped him.” The book of Kings carries a similar refrain. In 1 Kings 11:1-8 God warns that interfaith marriages will “surely” result in turning “away your heart after their gods.” Nevertheless “Solomon clave unto these in love,” “did evil in the sight of the Lord” and “went after” the god’s of his wives: Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh and Molech.

The call for religious purity within marriage can be found in the New Testament as well. In Revelation 2:14 Christ calls the Church in Pergamos to repentance for holding to the “doctrine of Balaam,” recalling Numbers 25 where, “Balaam had been guilty of counseling King Balak to cause Israel to sin through intermarriage with heathen women and through idol-worship.”[15] Jude 1:11 and 2 Peter 2:14-15, refers to this same act of Balaam whobeguiling unstable souls… loved the wages of unrighteousness.” In 1 Corinthians 7:39 Paul writes that widows are free to marry another spouse as long as they are a believer, that a “marriage should be in fellowship with the Lord, hence a marriage with a Christian.”[16] Perhaps the most famous New Testament verse used by Pastors against interfaith unions is 2 Corinthians 6:14 where Paul writes, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
3.) Objections - Hold your peace
There are some who attribute the stigma of interfaith marriage with racial inequality. Andrew Knowles argues that while the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are “very strict about the religious purity of the community,” other books take “a more open view, that God can bless and use a marriage which takes place across a racial boundary.”[17] Shaye J. D. Cohen agrees, arguing that “the Bible has no general prohibition against intermarriage” and that successful unions were “contracted by leading figures” throughout Scripture, pointing especially to Moses and Abraham.[18] He further contends that these “different traditions reflect changing social, geographical, and political circumstances.”[19]
With regards to Paul’s imperative to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers in 2 Corinthians 6:14, Murray J. Harris argues that Paul’s interest must not be unbelievers, but his “intent was that the Corinthians should repudiate all social intercourse with a professed believer who was guilty of immorality.” He points specifically to 1 Corinthians 7:12–14, wherein “Paul encourages Christians who find themselves in mixed marriages (presumably as a result of their conversion to Christ) not to seek divorce from the unbelieving spouse who consents to maintain the marriage.” Harris believes that 2 Corinthians 6:14 “must be assumed to be compatible" with the “directions regarding social relations with unbelievers” found elsewhere in Paul’s letters.[20]
4.) Conclusion – Forbidden Fruit
When it comes to the objections, I think the weaker points made are in reference to ethnic concerns. According to Douglas K. Stuart, “Intermarriage in the Bible is never discouraged on ethnic grounds, but religious intermarriage is consistently discouraged on religious grounds. In other words, there is nothing negative associated with the mixing of races, but great danger attends the mixing of religions.”[21] This religious purity was implemented for protection and for the purpose of witnessing to unbelievers rather than being led astray by them. For example, in the case of Moses’, he is never condemned by God, while Miriam is struck with leprosy for her condemnation of Moses’s marriage, not to a pagan but to an “Ethiopian.” I would agree with commentators who argue that in the case of Moses and Abraham, their spouses although of a different ethnic background, were religious converts, a theory which “is proved by the history of Tamar, of Rahab and of Ruth.”[22]
In Galatians 3:8, Paul writes that God’s intended purpose was to “justify the Gentiles by faith” and that He “preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” In 1 Kings 8:41-43, Solomon prays that God will convert foreigners, “that all peoples of the earth may know Your name and fear You, as do Your people Israel.” In Ephesians. 2:13-17 Paul is directly referencing Isaiah 57:19, a passage which contained “traditional proselyte language” referring to Gentile converts. [23] Throughout many of his letters, Paul reveals how the failed mission of Israel to convert pagan nations, has now become the victorious mission of the Church won through Christ’s sacrifice. [24]   
I think Paul’s directive as found in 1 Corinthians 7:12-17, that converts married to non-converts remain with them, although certainly true and relevant to the topic of interfaith unions, does not address the focal point of my ethical question; Is it ethical for Christians to enter into an interfaith marriage in the first place? Further, I don’t think Paul’s imperative in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to “not be unequally yoked” can be explained away so easily. The passage never speaks of backslidden believers. Further, the passage refers not to disengaging with unbelievers but specifically warns against making intimate alliances with them.[25] This distinction would in no way contradict Paul’s call for selective engagement. Although some commentators believe the passage is not solely speaking of marriage, they nevertheless argue that it undeniably includes it. According to John Calvin,
Marriage will also be prohibited, inasmuch as it is a snare, by which both men and women are entangled into an agreement with impiety; but what I mean is simply this, that Paul’s doctrine is of too general a nature to be restricted to marriage exclusively, for he is discoursing here as to the shunning of idolatry, on which account, also, we are prohibited from contracting marriages with the wicked.[26]

From the brief Scriptural overview of the consequences of entering into interfaith marriage found in section 2, I can see why so many conservative Christian pastors refrain from performing them. Concerning the purpose and the nature of marriage itself, Ephesians 5:22-33 defines marriage as a living, breathing analogy of Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:22-33 thoroughly reveals the intimacy, submission, sacrifice and unity required of married couples and provides for us, without a doubt, a tall enough order for same-faith marriages to aspire to. In Ephesians. 5:22-33 wives are called to submit to their husbands in all things and husbands are called to love their wives to the point of dying for them if needs be. I think such precepts would be extremely difficult if not impossible in a marriage with divided loyalties and differing moral standards and goals. Moreover, I think the case of interfaith unions causing the corruption of mankind and eventually the flood is a strong one, a pretty important point by itself. Further, due to the multiple Old Testament references to Balaam tempting God’s children into intermarriage, I believe the New Testament likewise advises against entering into interfaith unions. In summation, I believe Paul’s imperatives not to avoid unbelievers but rather to avoid entering into intimate alliances with them, whether in marriage or otherwise, is an important principle for Christians to adhere to.

Part 2.) Ethical Theories Evaluation:
1.) Deontology - Duty
Deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which means duty, “obligation,” or “necessity.”[27] It was a term coined not by a deontologist, but by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1826, to define the ethics of “moral obligation.”[28] Deontology is an ethical theory that posits the inherent rightness of an action.[29] One of the most influential works on Deontological ethics is Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.[30] Within this work, Kant argues that in reality, actions based on good intentions may result in evil consequences while actions based on evil intentions may have good outcomes.[31] Consequently, Kant believes that moral actions cannot be measured by consequences or by personal intent, unless that intent is based on inherently moral principles founded on reason.[32] According to Kant,
The pre-eminent good which we call moral can therefore consist in nothing else than the conception of law in itself, which certainly is only possible in a rational being, in so far as this conception, and not the expected effect, determines the will. This is a good which is already present in the person who acts accordingly, and we have not to wait for it to appear first in the result.[33]

Although Kantian ethics was highly influential to enlightenment thinking, Protestant thinkers turned increasingly to philosophical sources for moral guidance, and from the end of the 18th century were highly influenced by Kant. [34] John Locke, a Christian Philosopher and deontologist writes, “Our Saviors great rule, that we should love our neighbor as ourselves is such a fundamental truth for regulating human society that I think by that alone, one might determine all the cases and doubts in social morality.”[35] Another facet of deontology Christians might adhere to is divine command theory. “God may be thought of as the inventor of morality, as he is the inventor of birds. The moral law is often thought of as simply a product of God’s choice. This is the divine command theory: a thing is good only because God commands it and evil because he forbids it.”[36]
Deontologists and Interfaith Marriage  
            Since Christian deontologists base their moral decisions on Biblical imperatives and the moral obligation of following them, they would likely argue against interfaith unions by first laying the foundation for their ethic. They might point to Paul’s establishment of God’s law as found in Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law” and Romans 7:12, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” For verification of a Christian’s moral obligation to then obey Biblical law, they might point to 1 John 3:18-22, where John calls Christians to not “love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth,” by keeping “His commandments” and therefore doing “those things that are pleasing in His sight.” To establish the centrality of the Bible, they might point to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a verse which points to the entirety of Scripture as the source of moral instruction for the purpose of Christian duty, both of which are central to deontology. Christian deontologists might further look to passages that establish the moral character of the individual based on adherence to the law. They might point to such verses as 1 John 5:2-3 “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

Having laid the foundation for their ethic, deontologists might then address specific commands in the Bible pertaining to interfaith marriage such as Nehemiah 13:25-27. 
You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations there was no king like him, who was beloved of his God; and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless pagan women caused even him to sin. Should we then hear of your doing all this great evil, transgressing against our God by marrying pagan women?

This passage provides both the command to abstain from interfaith unions and supports deontological beliefs about the irrelevancy of personal intent when not based on law; particularly in reference to Solomon, an exceptional saint whose good intent was easily subverted by his breaking of the law.
With regards to Paul’s instruction to “not be unequally yoked,” deontologists would likely appreciate the Old Testament roots of the command an “image from the symbolical precept of the law.” [37] These roots are found in Leviticus 19:19, which begins with the preface, “You shall keep My statutes” and Deuteronomy 22:10 simply with the instructions “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” Of these root verses, Calvin writes, “from whence we gather that the people were surrounded with fixed barriers, lest they should defile themselves with foreign vices, and imitate the nations, from which they had been separated. Wherefore this is the sum, that they should abide in God’s statutes.”[38]
2.) Consequentialism - Results
Consequentialism is a term coined not by a consequentialist, but by analytic philosopher and proponent of virtue ethics, G.E.M. Anscombe in her work, Modern Moral Philosophy, published in 1958.[39] During the 1800’s, Utilitarianism came into prominence by English philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who are noted for rejecting “the adequacy of Kant’s deontological ethic.”[40] Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which primarily focuses on identifying “good with happiness and maintains those actions to be right which bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number.”[41] In his work, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill writes, “The multiplication of happiness is, according to utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue.”[42] Consequentialism on the other hand, as its name implies, focuses primarily on the facet of Utilitarianism that deals with the consequences of an action.[43] In his work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham writes, “The only way in which a motive can with safety and propriety be styled good or bad, is with reference to its effects in each individual instance; and principally from the intention it gives birth to.”[44] It would be this aspect of utilitarianism that consequentialism is based upon.[45] Consequentialists argue that moral principles are right or wrong based on their desirable (good), or undesirable (evil) outcomes.[46] Consequently, some would argue that Consequentialists “eventually do have a deontological basis” as they cannot avoid passing deontological judgments on the moral nature of an action or the agent performing them.[47]

Consequentialists and Interfaith Marriage
Where Christian deontologists would find the basis of their arguments primarily in Scripture, consequentialist define the moral nature of decisions by their results. Without the benefit of “omniscience,” many argue that consequentialists are unable to be absolutely comprehensive.[48] However, the more thorough the analysis is, the more informed the decision making process. The negative effects interfaith unions have on marriages and the church provided by statistics and as supported by Scripture (with the benefit of the omniscience of God), would likely be the focal point of arguments Christian consequentialists would use against interfaith marriage. Due to the limited scope of this project I will do a brief overview of some of the points consequentialists might consider.
In her book “Till Faith Do Us Part,” Naomi Schaeffer Riley, an investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, takes a consequentialist approach as she reveals the effects of interfaith marriages on American culture.[49] For those considering interfaith unions, Riley cites Rabbi Pirkei Avot, “Who is the Wise person? He who foresees the consequences.”[50] Riley notes that although now more than ever, Americans are determined to take a positive view of interfaith marriage “faith often turns out to be a more significant factor than they expected.”[51] According to Riley interfaith marriages “are generally more unhappy, with lower rates of marital satisfaction, and higher rates of instability,” resulting in considerably higher divorce rates than same-faith marriages.[52] In his work Religious intermarriage in the United States: trends, patterns, and predictors, Sociologist Darren E. Sherkat agrees.[53] From his research, Sherkat found that interfaith unions produce “a host” of negative outcomes, resulting in a higher likelihood for “spousal conflict, domestic violence, and divorce.”[54] According to the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, interfaith marriages were three times more likely to end in divorced or separation than couples who shared the same religion.[55]
Apart from marriage, interfaith unions further have a significant impact on the church. According to P.R.C.’s 2014 Religious Landscapes Study, among conservative groups, 25 percent of evangelical Protestants, 25 percent of Catholics and 47 percent of Eastern orthodox adherents have interfaith unions.[56] Although members of these groups are less likely to intermarry compared to more liberal branches, these percentages are expected to rise over the next few decades due to “the rising number of the religiously unaffiliated.”[57] Researchers found that the religiously unaffiliated, a cohort also referred to as “nones,” are growing at an ever increasing rate.[58] According to the data, “nones” are “second in size only to evangelical Protestants,” having grown by “roughly 19 million since 2007,” with “approximately 56 million” in their ranks.[59] According to P.R.C., of the thousands of interfaith couples surveyed, nearly one in five were either “religiously unaffiliated respondents who married a Christian spouse or Christians who married an unaffiliated spouse.”[60] Many sociologists argue that spousal influences are key for motivating “religious switching” and the alteration of other religious commitments.[61] P.R.C.’s data supports this theory; apparently the religiously unaffiliated are “the single biggest destination of movement across religious boundaries,” meaning that when churches lose their members, “nones” gain them.[62]
From a Scriptural standpoint, a Christian consequentialist would likely look at Biblical narratives which include the results of interfaith marriages. Many of these consequences, are featured in part two of this paper, including: God’s anger, apostasy, war, captivity, and the flood. Further examples might be the account of an interfaith marriage in Genesis 38:2, where Judah marries a Canaanite resulting in death and an evil lineage, as is reiterated in Malachi 2:11-12, “Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; For Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this.”[63] Likewise, in Genesis 26:34, it is recorded that Esau took pagan wives from the Hittites and Canaanites “which were a grief of mind” to his parents, Isaac and Rebekah. Within the next few verses we find Esau losing his birthright and blessing to Jacob who married among God’s people. Deuteronomy 7:1-6 would be an important verse as well, as God’s command is followed by the consequences of disobedience, specifically God’s anger and the peoples destruction; “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.”

Virtue Ethics – Character

Virtue ethics was made prominent in the twentieth century by analytic philosopher and Roman Catholic, G.E.M. Anscombe in her article, Modern Moral Philosophy, the same article wherein she coined the term consequentialism.[64] In her analysis Anscombe critiqued varying forms of deontology and utilitarianism including consequentialism, which she felt neglected many fundamental human questions of a personal and psychological nature.[65] According to Anscombe, “it can be seen that philosophically there is a huge gap, at present unfillable as far as we are concerned, which needs to be filled by an account of human nature, human action, the type of characteristic a virtue is, and, above all of human ‘flourishing.’[66] Many of these concerns were based on Aristotelian ideas which Anscombe felt were being neglected by modern ethicists.[67] According to Aristotle these three concepts are central for leading a virtuous life: “arête (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing).”[68] For Aristotle, “the goal of life was human flourishing” and “the ethical person was to practice the habits that made virtue the core of one’s character.”[69] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Following Plato and Aristotle, modern virtue ethics has always emphasized the importance of moral education, not as the inculcation of rules but as the training of character.”[70] Where deontology emphasizes moral obligation to law and consequentialism, the consequences of ones actions, virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the moral agent.[71] For virtue ethicists, virtue cannot be properly understood apart from ones character,
The good person (character) does what is good (virtues), and doing good (virtues, habits) over time produces good character. The aim of ethical development is to become a virtuous person because virtuous persons do virtuous deeds, and these lead toward flourishing. The question then is not so much “What should I do?” but “Who should I be?”[72]


Virtue Theory and Interfaith Marriage
Since a Christian virtue theorist is interested in the personal and psychological nature of moral questions, they would likely look at a number of different sources for their research, including surveys, case studies and the Scriptures. However, they would primarily be looking at this data for the purpose of deciphering how interfaith marriage might affect the personal convictions, habits and moral characters of those involved. They might also give further time and attention to the type of marriage a Christian should be seeking to pursue, particularly marriages defined by virtue. 
Although written primarily from a consequentialist perspective, in her book “Till Faith Do Us Part,” Riley includes many case studies of a personal and psychological nature that would be of interest to virtue theorists. Riley, a member of an interfaith union, herself (she is Jewish and her husband an ex-Jehovah’s witness) has a lot to say about the issue.[73] Although Riley see’s interfaith unions as the result of American ideals of “assimilation and tolerance,” she likewise see’s the roots of those principles as derived from the religious virtues the nation was founded on, namely “compassion and generosity.”[74] Although she supports the concept of “Co-exist,” Riley fears the moral decay of the nation when religious communities and convictions are compromised or abandoned.[75]
According to Riley, moral compromise is often inevitable for interfaith couples.[76] In one example, she recounts an interview with Christian pastor Mark Brewer, who had heard many requests from interfaith couples to not include the gospel nor mention the name of Jesus in the ceremony.[77] The Pastor replied that although he “respects the choices of interfaith couples” he can’t change the words he says, he can’t stop being who he is, a Christian minister.[78] Pastor William H. Willimon agrees, recalling a particular request he had by a Jewish-Christian couple, they asked if “I would be willing to put a potted plant in front of the cross so as to hide it during the ceremony. I had the wisdom to respond, "If a potted plant could deal with the differences you bring to this marriage, I would consent.”[79]
On the other hand, Riley found that in some cases, interfaith unions become the impetus for deeper religious conviction in both parties, unfortunately resulting in a lifelong battle of wills. In one telling example, Riley recounts an interview with a young Baptist and Muslim couple; The Baptist husband confessed “I didn’t know I was a Christian deep down until I tried living with someone who, though I loved her deeply and want to be with her forever, is not a Christian.”[80] The Muslim wife responded “You Christians sometimes don’t know how Christian you are until a Muslim shows you.”[81] Regrettably, these battles take place in the most intimate areas of people’s lives, namely the home and the church. The inevitable connection between religion, home and family life makes the challenges of interfaith marriage difficult to overestimate, as interfaith marriage counselor J.S. Ripley points out, “no one wants to be uncomfortable in their own home.”[82] According to Ripley, interfaith unions have been shown to affect “for better or for worse,” nearly every facet of everyday life.[83] Just some of the issues interfaith couples’ battle over include: what religion should be taught to the children, how much time and involvement can be spent on the church and how to handle in-laws. The list goes on to include fertility issues, food, holidays, traditions and so on.[84]
With these issues in mind, a virtue theorist would likely advise Christians to avoid forming close relationships containing such excessive dissimilarity and rather to have relationships based on virtue. As Aristotle puts it, a “complete sort of friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue.”[85] They would likely look at such moral dilemmas and argue rhetorically, do we really want to be the type of Christians that have strained marriages and a home and family life riddled with unrest, contention, moral compromise and the probability of divorce?”
A virtue theorist would likely further encourage Christians to recognize the importance of their religious convictions and loyalties. An important point considering the character of Paul who in spite of persecution was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16) and gloried in the “cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:14). From a Scriptural perspective, they might argue rhetorically “do we really want to hide the gospel and the cross of Christ and to blot out his name publically or privately for the sake of personal or social comfort?” They would also likely appreciate 1 Corinthians 7:32-25, where Paul warns the church that marriage even among believers inevitably involves “caring for the things of the world,” as pleasing one’s spouse is the desire of all married couples, a desire which although virtuous can often lend itself to divided loyalties. In summation, based on their ethic, the case studies and Scriptural support, a virtue theorist would likely emphasize how important it is for Christians to pursue relationships and environments where virtue can be nurtured, a robust faith and a peaceful home life can be maintained and a healthy marriage can flourish.

3.) Three Ethical Theories - Response
1. Deontology
I appreciate the emphasis Christian deontologists put on God’s word and the Christian’s moral obligation or responsibility to obey it. I think it’s essential for Christians to have a moral compass not based on cultural or personal preferences. This was a point emphasized by Jesus in Mark 7:13, where he accuses the Pharisees of disobeying God’s law and making “void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.” However, when trying to write from a deontological perspective, I found great difficulty in finding verses which were simple commands without preface or commands that didn’t emphasize a consequent promise or threat, blessing or curse. For example, Romans 6:15-16 asks “What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?”
With regards to the issue of interfaith marriage in particular, I see deontologists making strong points about the Bible’s commands to refrain from intimate alliances with unbelievers. However, these commands and instructions are not arbitrary. The biblical narratives continually highlight the consequences of keeping or breaking God’s law, as well as the moral character of those involved and their respective virtues and vices. In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Where Paul commands Christian “to not be unequally yoked,” Paul specifically spells out for us in the following verses why we should keep such an ordinance, “For you are the temple of the living God,” and God dwells in you and among you and with you (2 cor. 6:16). God further promises “I will receive you, I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” The emphasis here is on the great blessing of intimacy we are able to have with God.

2. Consequentialism
I would agree with critiques that point out the difficulty consequentialists have deciphering the moral nature of consequences. These criticisms usually involve the fact that individuals and cultures differ so much on the nature of good and evil and ultimately disagree on the interpretation and the nature of a consequence.[86] However, I think this could be true of any ethical system that does not have its foundation on God’s word. As Greg Bahnsen wrote, “God’s law condemns the “societal good” of those cultures that practiced genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides—and the more mundane evils in our own culture.”[87]
I do appreciate the attention consequentialists give to reward and punishment. Throughout my research, I found a certain level of dismissiveness and even repulsion at the idea that it might be virtuous to seek after rewards and benefits (I have strong suspicions that this attitude is likely due to the influence of asceticism, but that’s for another paper). However, this mindset was far from what I found in Scripture. According to Gill, ultimately, Consequentialists are “enjoined to be good” for the purposes avoiding negative consequences and of receiving “some reward, either in the form of some present or near future state, such as ‘pleasure’ or ‘happiness’, or in the more distant form of an earthly utopia or of a transcendent eternal life.”[88] The Bible encourages this exact principle in numerous places, continually calling Christians to seek after righteousness for the benefits of eternal life, an imperishable inheritance and treasures in heaven.[89] Hebrews 11:6 goes so far as to warn that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
With regards to the issue of interfaith marriage in particular, I think Consequentialist’s make a convincing case. Although consequentialist can’t see the future, I think the statistical research and the scriptural history providing incentives and de-incentives to abstain from intimate alliances with unbelievers are more than compelling. As I wrote in my critique of deontology, the Bible abounds with intimate promises, blessings and rewards for abstaining from interfaith unions and is likewise chock-full with warnings, cursing’s, and punishments for purposefully entering into them. 
3. Virtue Theory
When I consider virtue theory in light of Scripture, I think it works quite well. Unlike consequentialism and deontology, I see virtue theory emphasizing personal growth through education, discipline and sanctification. These are important goals for Christians and I appreciate the emphasis virtue theorists place on them. I see the three principles of “arête (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (happiness or flourishing),” as concepts emphasized throughout the Bible. The book of Proverbs is an entire volume centered on phronesis or practical wisdom. Proverbs 4:5 says “Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.” We can further see arête or virtue as a character trait emphasized in Proverbs 12:4, which says “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband,” and Proverbs 31 further gives a lengthy exposition on the character traits of a virtuous wife. Proverbs 4:23-27 warns that the heart, or the inward character of a man is responsible for the “issues of life,” and encourages the pursuit of virtue through good habits,
Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.  Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee. Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Further, these are concept which Jesus reiterates throughout his ministry. In Luke 6:45, Jesus says “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”

With regards to the issue of interfaith marriage in particular, I think virtue theorists make a strong case. I appreciate the personal nature of virtue theorist’s arguments, which I think would be especially compelling in a Christian counseling session. I think most Christians have some understanding of the type of moral character God calls them to aspire to. Consequently, when virtue theorists ask the right questions, particularly concerning moral compromise “do we really want to be the type of persons willing to hide the gospel and the cross of Christ and to blot out his name publically or privately for the sake of social comfort?” I think they would likely leave a powerful impression.    
I further appreciate the emphasis virtue theorists put on eudaimonia or the good or flourishing life. I do think the Bible sees trials and difficulties in life as character forming as Paul says in Romans 5:3 that we should glory in tribulation “knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope.” However, I think the Bible calls Christians on a whole to pursue a life of thankfulness, joy and peace. In John 16:24, Jesus calls us to ask and receive that our “joy might be full.” In Matthew 5:9 Jesus calls us to be “peacemakers” and Paul encourages believer to strive and “aspire” to lead quiet and peaceable lives “in all godliness and honesty” (1st Thes. 4:11, 1 Tim. 2:2) As James 3:17-18, says, Christians should seek after virtue and the “wisdom that is from above” which is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.” In summation, I think virtue theorists make a strong case against interfaith unions when they consider the pursuit of a virtuous character, practical wisdom and the good or flourishing life as important Christian goals for marriage.


[1] Becka, Alper, "America’s Changing Religious Landscape, Pew Research Center," Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, accessed November 1, 2015, http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/.
[2] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[3] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[4] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[5] Robert Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 232.
[6] Wuthnow, Religious Diversity, 233.            
[7] Wuthnow, Religious Diversity, 233.
[8] Wuthnow, Religious Diversity, 233.
[9] The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ec 1:9.
[10] "Biblical Horizons No. 22: Three “Falls” and Three Heroes," Biblical Horizons, accessed November 1, 2015, http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-22-three-falls-and-three-heroes/.
[11] Jordan refers to Matthew 22:30, where Jesus says that angels do not marry nor or given in marriage.
[12] Jordan, Three Fall’s and Three Heroes.
[13] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1985.
[14] Dennis L. Durst, “Nations, the,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015).
[15] John F. Walvoord, “Revelation,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 936.
[16] John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Corinthians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 164.
[17] Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 196.
[18] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition., JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 435.
[19] Cohn, Ruth, 435.
[20] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Milton Keynes, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Paternoster Press, 2005), 500.
[21] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 725.
[22] Lange, Numbers, 69.
[23] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 191.
[24] Walter L. Liefeld, Ephesians, vol. 10, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Eph 2:13.
[25] Harris, A Commentary on the Greek Text, 500.
[26] John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 258.
[27] C. Stephen Evans, Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 33.
[28] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford;  New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 473.
[29] Evans, Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, 33.
[30] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (London: Longmans, Green, 1900), 22.
[31] Kant, Groundwork, 22.
[32] Kant, Groundwork, 22.  
[33] Kant, Groundwork, 22. 
[34] Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 446.
[35] John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690 (London: Cummings, Hilard and J. T. Buckingham Press, 1828), 353.
[36] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 76.
[37] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 311.
[38] John Calvin and Charles William Bingham, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 49.
[39] Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 121.
[40] S. McKnight, “Ethics of Jesus,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 244.
[41] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford;  New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1685.
[42] John Stuart Mill, The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill: Ethical, Political, and Religious (New York: Modern Library, 1961) 27.
[43] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[44] Jeremy Bentham, J. H. Burns, and H. L. A. Hart, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 116.
[45] Bentham, Morals and Legislation, 116.
[46] Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985), 5-6.
[47] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-6.
[48] Jackson, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 122.
[49] Naomi Schaefer Riley, 'Til Faith Do Us Part: The Rise of Interfaith Marriage and the Future of American Religion, Family, and Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 20.
[50] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 20.
[51] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 15.
[52] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 15.
[53] Darren E. Sherkat, "Religious intermarriage in the United States: trends, patterns, and predictors," Social Science Research 33, no. 4 (2004): 45, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.11.001., 606.
[54] Sherkat, Religious intermarriage, 606.
[55] Barry A. Kosmin and Egon Mayer, "American Religious Identification Survey," University of New York, last modified December 19, 2001, http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/ARIS/ARIS-PDF-version.pdf.
[56] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[57] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[58] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[59] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[60] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[61]  Sherkat, Religious intermarriage, 606.
[62] Alper, Religious Landscape.
[63] John F. Walvoord, “Revelation,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 936.
[64] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Consequentialism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified Winter 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.
[65] G. E. M Anscombe, The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), 26.
[66] Anscombe, Philosophical papers, 41.
[67] Rosalind Hursthouse, "Virtue Ethics," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified Winter 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.
[68] Hursthouse, Virtue Ethics.
[69] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[70] Hursthouse, Virtue Ethics.
[71] Hursthouse, Virtue Ethics.
[72] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[73] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 6.
[74] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 6.
[75]  Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 6.
[76] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 20.
[77] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 20.
[78] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 75.
[79]  William H. Willimon, "Interfaith marriage: A reality check," Interfaith Opportunities Network - ION Amherst, MA Home, last modified May 20, 2013, http://www.interfaithamherst.org/images/Interfaith_marriage_-_A_Reality_Check_William_H._Willimon_review_in_The_Christian_Century.pdf.
[80] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 111.
[81] Riley, Faith Do Us Part, 111.
[82] J. S. Ripley, “Interfaith Marriage Counseling,” ed. David G. Benner and Peter C. Hill, Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 641.
[83] Ripley, Interfaith Marriage Counseling, 641.
[84] Ripley, Interfaith Marriage Counseling, 641.
[85] Aristotle, Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Roger Crisp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 144.
[86] Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 181.
[87] DeMar, Pushing the Antithesis, 181.
[88] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-6.
[89] See: 1st Peter 1-5, Romans 8:31-32, Matthew 10:42, James 1:12, Psalm 16:11