See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368281448

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Chapter · February 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 8,345

1 author:

Darty Darty
University of Uyo
21 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Darty Darty on 05 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 19

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

By

*Darty Emmanuel Darty Ph.D

Department of Philosophy
University of Uyo
Uyo – Nigeria.
[email protected]

Introduction

Ethics deals with standards or principles for the systematic evaluation of the

rightness or wrongness of human conduct. Conduct here refers to those actions that

are freely taken or that are seen to spring from deliberate choices made by free

moral agents. What this implies is that ethics presupposes human freedom and

moral responsibility. In a similar way, Christianity as a religion also presupposes

human freedom and moral responsibility. This is in the sense that if a person acts

in a certain way, the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of such an action is

attributable to the person, not to some determinants of behavior that may be

remotely related or external to the person. The relationship between Christianity

and ethics lies in the fact that Christianity prescribes or commands her devotees to

choose some actions instead of others. Such actions which are desirable to

Christians form the content of what we call Christian conduct. The consistency of

the influence of Christian ideals and values on the moral judgments of her devotees
 20

over a long period of time has made the very words „Christian‟ and „unchristian‟ to

be seen by many as categories of moral evaluation. This is why to say that a

conduct is „Christian‟ is to some degree, a commendation; while to label a conduct

as „unchristian‟ is almost synonymous with saying that it is immoral and evil.

Since ethics is normative, it does not set out to describe the way men behave

in practice but how men ought to behave (Omoregbe 4). In a similar way, it is a

major task of Christian ethics to analyze the fundamental principles of the

Christian life in order to determine what ought to be done in the light of Christian

ideals when a Christian is faced with moral dilemmas. This is why James Gustafon

says that “Christian ethics is concerned with the practical task of the actual conduct

of the human person and how the person should make moral judgments that lead to

behavior consistent with one‟s Christian faith” (85). It must be stated here that one

does not necessarily need to be a Christian in order to lead a moral life – to know

that hospitality, faithfulness and sincerity are good while bribery, adultery and

dishonesty are morally wrong. Even if we have certain conducts that are

particularly associated with Christianity, such as the love of one‟s neighbor as

oneself, this conduct is not limited to the Christian alone. Indeed there are many

non-Christians that exhibit this charity as well. Though the Christian and the non-

Christian appear to act similarly in this case, the uniqueness of the Christian‟s

conduct is that it is derived from a source that is not foundational for the non-
 21

Christian. The source from which the Christian‟s moral conduct is derived is the

figure and person of Jesus Christ. The question of whether the good conduct of the

Christian and that of the non-Christian can be founded on the same motivation is

one debate that has engaged the minds of contemporary scholars of Christian

ethics. We shall attempt to look at this in due course but for now, we have to side-

step it and look into the meaning of Christian ethics since this is more foundational

to us at this point by order of priority and precedence.

The Meaning of Christian Ethics

While there is a common understanding among interested scholars that

Christian ethics is a valid field of study, there seems to be no common

understanding on its definition. Stanley Hauerwas acknowledges this and believes

that “ the lack of consensus on what Christian ethics means connects with the way

people have become less and less clear on what it „means‟ to be Christian”(43). For

Hauerwas, it is one‟s understanding of the meaning of Christianity that influences

the person‟s understanding of Christian ethics. For instance, a person might hold

the view that a Christian is a moralist while another might maintain that the

Christian is a theist. These views are not totally wrong; but they cannot be said to

be completely correct. We are sure to find non-Christians who conduct themselves

morally. Also, it is true that all Christians believe in God, but Jews and Moslems

believe in God as well and they do not profess to be Christians. In the opinion of
 22

Hauerwas, it is the differing opinions on what Christianity means that has led

inescapably to differing conceptions of what Christian ethics means. Let us

consider some of the definitions that have been given for Christian ethics.

Henlee Barnette defines Christian ethics as “a systematic explanation of the

moral example and teachings of Jesus Christ applied to the total life of the

individual in society” (3). This means that for Barnette, the moral example and

teachings of Jesus Christ and their applicability to life constitutes the essence of

Christian ethics. Barnette further maintains that Christians must make use of

philosophical insights which contribute to an understanding of the moral problems

that the Christian is faced with in daily life. He warns that in doing this, we should

not forget that Christian ethics begins with revelation while philosophical ethics

begins with reason. For him, Christian ethics possesses the truth while

philosophical ethics only „pursues‟ or „searches after‟ truth (Barnette 8). Norman

Geisler (24) is of the view that all ethical systems can be broadly divided into two

categories – deontological and teleological and that Christian ethics is a form of

deontological ethics known as the divine-command position. What this means is

that for Geisler, Christian ethics views human actions as intrinsically right or

wrong. It does not look at the end that an action brings about as the standard for

decision on the rightness or wrongness of the action. Hence, any action that fails to
 23

square with the divine command of morality is to be rejected the desirability of its

consequences notwithstanding.

There are many other scholars who, in defining Christian ethics, see the

divine command and its emphasis on revelation as opposed to reason as the

defining character of Christian ethics. While such thinkers see all moral

philosophies and ethical theories to be based on human reason, they see Christian

ethics to be founded on revelation and human reason is considered useful only to

the extent that it serves the purpose of aiding revelation and not that of questioning

it. Daniel Heimbach (9) lists those that hold this position to include Karl Barth,

Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Ramsey, Georgia Harkness, Carl Henry, Helmut Thielicke

and Jacques Ellul. Karl Barth sees no difference between moral theology and

Christian ethics because for him, “Christian ethics is a theological discipline in

which an answer is sought in the word of God to the question of the goodness of

human conduct” (3). In this sense, the goodness of human conduct is to be

evaluated when held in comparison with the word of God addressed to man. Barth

believes that all philosophical ethical systems are not really ethics because the only

true ethics is Christian ethics which is revealed by God. Since Christian ethics is

from God, Barth believes that it seals the lid and puts an end to all philosophical

speculation on the standards for the rightness or wrongness of human actions.

 24

Contrary to the definition of Barnette which we saw earlier, Barth holds that

philosophical ethics has no standing to claim any sort of moral insight for

improving on the ethical prescriptions of the word of God. Philosophical ethics has

no basis for asserting any truth claim on human conduct and if it tries to do so, the

attempt is idolatrous because it turns speculation into a sort of false theology

(Barth 44). Hence, Barth and his co-laborers hold that Christian ethics is superior

to all other ethical theories and cannot therefore be improved by adding to it any

ideas from any source other than the word of God. That is why for them, Christian

ethics is theocentric, transcendent, supernatural, theistic, divinely revealed and

divinely ordered. It is therefore not mundane, naturalistic, anthropocentric or

humanly generated.

As can be seen from the above, definitions of Christian ethics differ because

while Christianity is based on revelation, ethics is based on reason. The term

„Christian‟ added to „ethics‟ suggests to some, that revelation is superior to reason.

That is why for such thinkers, Christian ethics is overtly authoritarian because the

emphasis is more on the word „Christian‟ while „ethics‟ is de-emphasized. This is

the category where Barth‟s definition falls. To others, Christian ethics implies that

though the Christian conduct is revelatory, it needs to be interpreted and ordered in

line with reason without which it cannot be properly called ethics. Thus, if it is to

be called ethics, Christian ethics must share in the character of other philosophical
 25

ethical systems which are based on reason, not on revelation. This is where the

definition of Henlee Barnette falls. While reason is essential for the study of ethics,

Christian ethics risks being diluted if we accentuate the capacity of human reason

and its „Christian‟ aspect is de-emphasized. Contrary to other ethical theories, the

uniqueness of Christian ethics is in its position that a person does not come to

moral truth through reason alone, but through revelation: through reason informed

by faith. We adopt a via-media approach by seeing Christian ethics as the

systematic study of the principles of the human experience of the reality of God

and how this experience affects the moral judgments of the Christian individual

and the Christian community.

In considering the nature of Christian ethics, certain questions agitate the

mind. Such questions include: is Christian ethics speculative or prescriptive? Is it

all about what is considered good from the point of view of the supernatural? Is

Christian ethics for the world (universal) or specifically for Christians? Is it for the

here-and-now world or is it other-worldly, for a not-yet world? Is Christian ethics

eternal or changing? Does it center specifically on Christ or on human rationality?

How is the Christian to act when faced with an ethical dilemma for which

conflicting Christian principles are applicable? In elucidating the nature of

Christian ethics in this work, we shall focus on the divine commands of the

Decalogue, the Ten Commandments and attempt to show that all the ethical
 26

principles of the Decalogue can be subsumed into the divine command to love

God, our neighbors and even our enemies.

Christian Ethics as a Divine Command of Love

Uduigwomen is of the opinion that the teachings of Christ as contained in

the gospels, the apostolic epistles and certain ethical prescriptions of the Old

Testament such as the Decalogue are assumed to constitute a moral code for

Christian ethics (Introducing Ethics 141-142). The Ten Commandments as stated

in The Holy Bible are:

1. You shall have no other gods.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven

above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

5. Honor your father and your mother.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

 27

10.You shall not covet your neighbor‟s house…or anything that belongs to your

neighbor. (The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:1-7).

Iwe as cited by Uduigwomen has summarized the Ten Commandments stated

above under three moral precepts which are:

1. Live honestly before God and man.

2. Give to everyone his due and

3. Do not injure anyone.

Though Iwe has attempted to summarize the moral code of the Decalogue into the

three precepts stated above, they can better be viewed as a divine command of

love. Jesus Christ had taught that in the conduct of the Christian, love should be the

motivation that drives human action. The command to love does not render the

moral code of the Decalogue invalid; but summarizes it in a manner that is all-

inclusive. Jesus Christ who the Christians model their conduct after, saw the

commandment to love as the greatest of all. When he was approached with the

question of which of the commandments is the greatest of all, Jesus simply replied

“love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your

entire mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like

it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets [Ten
 28

Commandments] hang on these two commandments” (The Holy Bible, Mathew

22:37-40).

The truth is that a Christian who takes love for God and his neighbors as a

lived-out principle already fulfills the demands of the Decalogue. A person that

loves God sincerely will neither bow to nor have other gods. He will treat the name

of God with reverence and keep the days set aside for God as holy. Also, a person

who loves his neighbor as himself will not murder his neighbor; he will not

commit adultery against the neighbor, will not steal from the neighbor or give a

false testimony against the neighbor. Neighbor here does not refer to a few known

persons residing within a specific locality; it by extension includes the whole of

humanity. From here we can see that after salvation, in the command to love, other

requirements of the Christian conduct find fulfillment.

An interesting twist is added to the divine command of love when Jesus

Christ teaches his followers (Christians) that they should move beyond the level of

merely loving friendly neighbors and extend the hand of love to enemies. Jesus

Christ says:

You have heard that it was said love your neighbor and hate your
enemy. But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you that you may be sons of your father in heaven… If you
love only those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even
the tax collectors [non-Christians] doing that? And if you greet only
your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even
 29

pagans do that? Be perfect therefore as your heavenly father is perfect.

(The Holy Bible, Mathew 5:43-48)
From here we can see that there is no doubt about the divine source of the

command to love. Uduigwomen has cited Iwe as maintaining that “the central tenet

of Christian ethics is that the good life for man consists in the love of God, and this

good life can be attained by behaving in accordance with God‟s precepts”

(Introducing Ethics 142).

Still demonstrating the centrality and indispensability of the divine-

command of love as a cardinal principle of Christian ethics, Uduigwomen says that

in Christian ethics,

The blessed life is nothing else than to love God. The cause of moral
evil is disordered love. Disordered love results from man‟s thinking
that he will achieve true happiness by loving objects, other persons
and himself more than God the creator and ultimate source of reality.
It does not take long for disordered love to give birth to a disordered
person and disordered persons give birth to a disordered community.
No effort at reordering the human community will be fruitful without
a reordering of its members. Personal reconstruction or salvation is
only possible by reordering our love (Introducing Ethics 142-143).
What this means is that sin is a disordering of love. It is what causes man to be

alienated from his creator and this disorderliness though it begins from the

individual, does not end with the individual. It replicates itself in the human

community and results in the perversion of good conduct everywhere. Love is the

core, the measure and judge of Christian conduct and morality. It is an

 30

encapsulation of such desirable characteristics as truth, justice, service, sacrifice,

patience, self-control, purity, long-suffering, meekness, honesty and the spirit of

peace. Rather than love his maker as his first and foremost responsibility, the

sinner‟s love is directed at other things. This manifests in so many undesirable

vices which we see as morally unacceptable conducts in the human community.

For Uduigwomen,

The greatest sin before God is pride, which can be roughly defined as
an unhealthy self-love or a state of mind which induces us to trust in
ourselves rather than God. If the root of all evil is self-centeredness,
its antithesis must be other-centeredness. This was certainly what
Christ meant when he said that the first great commandment is whole-
hearted love for God, and second, loving one‟s neighbor as oneself.
The essence of Christian ethics is therefore self-crucifixion and a new
birth, which enables us to act on a different set of values. For Christ,
the solution to self-love is a spiritual rebirth which will bring about a
radical transformation of our minds (Christian Philosophy 36).
Hence, we can see that Christian ethics is founded on love – love for God, love for

fellow men and even love for enemies. Love holds a central place. It is the

condition or basis on which the rightness or wrongness of actions are assessed.

Though love is central to Christian ethics, there is another ethical theory which

regards love as a fundamental rule or standard for decision on the rightness or

wrongness of human conduct. This theory is the situational ethics of Joseph

Fletcher. Let us now have an overview of the situationist conception of love as

related to Christian ethics.

 31

The Concept of ‘Love’ in Christian Ethics and the Situational Ethics of

Joseph Fletcher
Joseph Fletcher‟s situational ethics was a reaction against Christian ethics

which maintains that certain actions are intrinsically evil irrespective of the

situation under which they are performed. Situational ethics denies that any action

is intrinsically evil. This is because an action might be bad in a particular situation

but the same action will be adjudged „good‟ in another situation. In this sense,

situational ethics is teleological. It looks at the consequence of an action as that

which makes it right or wrong. An example that Fletcher uses to back up his

argument is that of a German family which was dispersed during the Second World

War. As a result of the war, Mr. Bergmeier was captured by the army and taken

captive to a prison camp in Wales; his wife was taken to Ukraine while his children

were all dispersed. After a while, Mr. Bergmeier was released and he went back to

Germany, traced and found all his children. His wife at Ukraine soon got wind of

the information that her family had reunited and she was the only one still in

detention. At her prison camp, a prisoner could only be released on two conditions:

either on grounds of a terrible ailment or pregnancy in the case of women. In order

to fulfill the condition of her release, Mrs. Bergmeier got one of the prison guards

to impregnate her. When she was certified medically to be pregnant, she was

released from the prison and she got reunited with her family. The question is: was

Mrs. Bergmeier‟s action right or wrong? Omoregbe says that “traditional Christian
 32

ethics would have no hesitation in condemning it as adultery, an intrinsically evil

action which no situation can justify. But situation ethics approves it as good

action in view of the situation in which it is performed” (256).

Going by the above, it appears that Christian ethics and situational ethics are

parallel lines that can never meet. This is because while Christian ethics is

deontological, situation ethics is consequentialist. The point of similarity between

them is that they both admit that „love‟ is the absolute moral norm. This makes it

needful for us to examine the conceptions of „love‟ in these ethical systems.

Fletcher says that “the basic premise within this [situationist] system is that love is

the one norm or principle that is always binding or right. In each and every

situation requiring an ethical decision, all other principles and norms become

subservient to the criterion of love” (30). The point that Fletcher is making here is

that in the case of Mrs. Bergmeier, it was love for her family that motivated her

„adultery‟ which in the end served the purpose of her much-needed reunion with

her family. In our consideration, the major difference between Fletcher‟s

conception of love which has led to a situationist justification of adultery and the

Christian conception of love which would never approve of Mrs. Bergmeier‟s

action is that Christian love is first and foremost directed towards divinity before it

finds expression in humanity. Love for God takes precedence over love for persons

and the latter finds its justification in the former. Love for God is of first-place
 33

importance. In Christian ethics, love for God entails the keeping of God‟s

commandments and one of God‟s commandments is the commandment to abstain

from adultery. In this sense, the love for God in Christian ethics cancels out the

option of adultery which was open to Mrs. Bergmeier. Situational ethics does not

recognize any divine source from where it springs. This is one of the criticisms that

have been brought against situational ethics – it lacks an objective standard by

which „love‟ is to be defined. Morris and Woodbridge (4) have asked: what is the

standard by which the mandate to love is defended in situational ethics? A

contradiction arises because the same action performed by a person on the basis of

„love‟ can be interpreted by another, to be motivated by hatred. For the situationist,

love is always good; love and justice are identical and love justifies its means.

Fletcher distinguishes between three kinds of love. Filial love is ordinary

love. It is the sort of love that bonds the mother and her child. Erotic love is sexual

love, while agape love is the real, unconditional love. Omoregbe says that:

Agape love is the Christian love, the biblical love. It is the love
for a person because of God, the love of God extended to other
people. This is the love recognized by situation ethics as the
only absolute law which must be obeyed in all situations
without exception. It is the only law that has no exception. But
its concrete expression differs from one situation to another.
(258)
In Christian ethics, there is no speculation on the source of the command to love.

Love is a divine command. To love God and all humanity is what characterizes the
 34

Christian conduct. Situational ethics meets with considerable difficulty here

because in the words of Morris and Woodbridge (4), situational ethics contends

that there are no rules except the rule to love. But what if, in a certain situation, one

decides that love is not the appropriate course of action? There are no absolutes –

except that one absolutely must love in all situations.

In Christian ethics, love is universal and objective whereas in situation

ethics, it is subjective. Because of this subjectivity, situational ethics does not see

God as the moral sovereign of the universe, but substitutes man in His place. This

can lead to undesirable consequences. If a man‟s bosom friend has an enemy for

instance, situational ethics would not see anything wrong if the man dislikes his

friend‟s enemy in a show of loyalty and love for his friend. Christian ethics would

not support this – it recommends that love should be extended to all friends and

foes. Hence, the concept of love in situational ethics is dubious, superficial,

subjective and conditional. It is the Christian conception of love that is true,

unconditional, eternal and unchanging. Crook (97) is of the opinion that central to

the Christian life is a relationship with God and other people. The two are so

intrinsically connected that they cannot be legitimately separated. Having shown

the centrality of love to Christian conduct and having considered the conceptions

of love in Christian and situational ethics, let us evaluate Christian ethics before

concluding.
 35

Critical Remarks

Just like every other ethical system, Christian ethics is not without its

criticisms. One of the criticisms that have been leveled against Christian ethics is

its identification of „the good‟ with the obedience to God‟s will. In Christian ethics,

morality is equated with obedience to God‟s will, while immorality is equated with

disobedience to God‟s will. Uduigwomen has noted that some philosophers have

argued that this moral position can only be accepted if it can be demonstrated that

God is good (Introducing Ethics 145). Is an action good because God says it is

good or does God say an action is good because it is good? For Christian ethics, an

action is good because God says it is good. This is why many see Christian ethics

to be dogmatic and authoritarian. It does not give room for an objective rational

examination since it is based on faith. It does not give room for such questions as:

why is God good? What is the reason for His goodness? How can we explain the

existence of evil in the world, while simultaneously asserting goodness of God?

Can something evil come out of something good? Resolving the puzzle of an evil

world of immorality created by a good God has been a daunting task for Christian

ethicists and theologians. For the Christian religious devotee, faith and believe in

the goodness of God settles it all. This authoritarian approach of unquestioning

belief and obedience is not satisfying to the non-Christian hence; the problem

assumes a perennial dimension.

 36

Christian ethics blurs the distinction between the religious significance and

the moral significance of human actions. This is because in Christian ethics, the

moral is the religious. An illustration is necessary here. If person A and person B

perform the same action: they both saw a homeless veteran who inspired

compassion in them, and they decided individually to offer the same amount of

money to the homeless veteran. Ordinarily, we would say that both persons did

what was right. But if person A is a Christian and person B is not, then in the light

of Christian ethics, this forms the basis for a further qualification of the moral

significance of their action. This is why Esbensen says that:

While the Christian and the non-Christian can share the same
intensions, dispositions, values and behaviors, the inner motivation of
the Christian person is specifically Christian and thus produces
extrinsic actions that are human (in terms of being possible by all
human beings universally), but distinctively Christian (in terms of
reflecting that which is generally associated with the particular group
of individuals identifying themselves as Christians). In other words,
while the Christian and the non-Christian can share the same morality
in appearance, the intrinsically Christian aspect of the Christian
person instantiates itself in extrinsic attitudes and actions that are
specifically Christian because those intentions, dispositions, values,
etc. stems from a person who recognizes herself as both sinful and
redeemed, both human and Christian. The Christian understands
oneself as a person living in, with and through Christ (21).
In Christian ethics, the Christian‟s action is morally significant while that of the

non-Christian is not since the non-Christian is still living in alienation from God,

the fact that they both offered the same amount of money in benevolence to the

homeless veteran notwithstanding. The problem here is that by questioning the

 37

moral significance of the non-Christian‟s action while justifying that of the

Christian, Christian ethics identifies the moral significance of an action with its

religious significance. One must not necessarily make a religious commitment to

Christianity for his or her action to be morally significant.

Another problem that faces Christian ethics is the problem of conflicting

interpretations of principles in morally dilemmic situations. In this work, we have

shown that the divine command of love is central to Christian ethics. How can a

Christian be in line with this principle in dilemmic situations? Let us consider an

example. If a person‟s family is taken hostage with the only option of their release

being the destruction of the captors, should the person violate the divine command

to love all humanity (including enemies) which prohibits the murder of the captors

in order to save one‟s family? Or should one violate the mandate to love, provide

for and protect one‟s family by allowing the captors to kill them? At such a

crossroad as this, what should the Christian do? What should the Christian do if a

loved one requests voluntarily for an assisted suicide in order to end the pains of a

terminal ailment that has made life miserable, shameful and unbearable? One

would be moved by sympathy to put to death a suffering animal in order to end its

suffering. Why should the Christian not do same out of love to a friend who

voluntarily demands and pleads for it and especially if the Christian would do same

to himself if faced with the same condition? To these sorts of problem, Christian
 38

ethics recommends that the Christian should pray, exercise faith and believe in the

omnipotence of God. Morris and Woodbridge (9) maintain that while some areas

of Christian ethics are indeed problematic, satisfactory resolutions to such concerns

are available. Christian ethics sets forth a system of ethical principles and moral

teachings that are unsurpassed in human history.

Conclusion

In Christian ethics, the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on its

being in line with God‟s divine commands and moral principles. The Decalogue

constitutes a moral code but it is summarily expressed in the greatest

commandment – the commandment to love God and all humanity. Since the

Christian conception of love is objective, Christian ethics to a great extent avoids

the contradictions that arise in the subjective and relative conception of love of

situational ethics. However, even in Christian ethics, conflicting interpretations and

applications of „love‟ still persists. For instance, a Christian‟s love for God and

humanity can make her to see abortion as murder. What is the Christian to do in

the case of an ectopic pregnancy? How should such a Christian to respond on

knowing that the solution to ectopic pregnancy is abortion? Some recommend that

when faced with moral dilemmas where both alternatives appear to be wrong, the

lesser-of-the-two evils should be committed and afterwards the sin should be

confessed (Morris and Woodbridge 7). In Christian ethics, faith in the omnipotence
 39

of God is paramount. This is believed to guarantee peace and happiness, not just in

the world here-and-now, but also in a world yet-to-come.

 40

Works Cited
Barnette, Henlee. Introducing Christian Ethics. Tennessee: Broadman Publishers, 1961.

Barth, Karl. Ethics. New York: Seabury Press, 1981.

Crook, Roger. An Introduction to Christian Ethics. New Jersey: Preston Hall, 1999. Retrieved
from the Web, www.amazon.com. May 16, 2014.
Esbensen, Lindsey. The Centrality of Jesus Christ for Moral Theology: A Critical Appraisal of
the Distinctively Religious Moral Theology of Bernard Haring. Indiana: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2011.
Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997.
Geisler, Norman. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Michigan: Baker Publishers, 1989.
Gustafon, James. Christian Ethics and the Community. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1971.
Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer on Christian Ethics. Indiana: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
Heimbach, Daniel. “Towards Defining Christian Ethics: an Evaluation of Contrasting Views.”
Global Journal of Classical Theology, 8.3, 2011.
Morris, Russell and Noel Woodbridge. “Christian Ethics as an Adequate Ethical System in the
Context of Modern Culture: A Theological Analysis and Critical Evaluation”. Retrieved
from the Web, www.sats.edu.za. May 16, 2014
Omoregbe, Joseph. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Publishers,1993.
The Holy Bible (New International Version). Colorado Springs: Biblica, 1984.
Uduigwomen, Andrew. A Companion of Christian Philosophy and Apologetics. Calabar:
Ultimate Index Book Publishers, 2009.
---. Introducing Ethics: Trends, Problems and Perspectives. Calabar: Campus Life Arts, 2001.

*How to Cite:
Darty, Darty Emmanuel. “Christian Ethics”. Ethics: Some Critical Essays. Edited by,
Idorenyin F. Esikot. Uyo: Excel Publishers, 2014. (pp. 19 – 40)

View publication stats