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 who “beguiling
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. 4 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
