Christian ethics is categorized in broad approaches whereby it is supposed to mean those ethics if, for anyone, that is it is universal, it can mean that ethics is subversive that is for the excluded and ethics is for ecclesial meaning that it is for the church. Pastor Jane has received an invitation to apply for a grant offer that would enable her church projects to be supported.
It should be noted that when President Bush launched the faith-based initiative in 2001, he open the gate for the church-run social programs and this included the issuing of grants and the church receiving them. Out of 100 churches, ten churches benefited from the initiative. The notion of the initiative is to make sure that the congregation had generations of experiences in providing social services to the community. The government and dozens other faith-based community initiative office opened similar offices so that they could encourage the religious groups to seek grants and contracts.
There have been controversies however on the fact that the issuing of grants have not been embraced by different faith who claim that it is against the Christian ethics. The churches came to learn that the grant left the government with an opportunity to even interfere with the church activities like baring the Bible study prayers and other religious content. The stipulations given go against all the things that Christianity believes in, but some individuals welcomed the initiatives claiming that since the church is providing services, then they were entitled to the grants.
According to the book that introduces ethics, the intention states that the relationship with Christian may it be that of the past or the present are traced by ethics and binds the generations with the task of praise and hope. Authority is said to be of the text meaning that the test isn't mattered as the issues that the text describes. In this context, since Jane was the authority that has been entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the church safe, she should be given the benefit of the doubt and be left to attend the invitation for the grants contracts since she sought to stand by the services of the people.
Janes authority is recognized even by the Department of labor, but instead of the church to support her or the board, they decline her the opportunity to offer to counsel on the grant initiative offer. Although Jane declined the offer, the decision was coerced and forced upon since she was very eager to go to the counseling session, but her vision was cut short. So much time as she held back the thirst to do what she liked doing the best, then Janes authority was undermined, and her freedom to make her decision was tampered with.
On the other hand, the board from where Jane was a pastor were trying to consider the effects of what Christian ethics would impact to their faith. They were relying on the moral reflection. For most of the churches, history was not a particular category of Christian ethics since most churches did not believe in the universal concept of ethics. The Christian faith used to rely on the confession and the assumption of the shape action and thought that was understood as the action of God in Christ.
The Christian thinkers were sought to work out the faith that people used to confess about the question of character, right and good. The early church was so much devoted to keeping the house of God in order, and they would do that, even if it meant avoiding the public scandal and how to reflect on the relations to a generous God in the practice of generosity. In this context, a lot of individuals consulted the early welfare system for those who were within and also for those who were outside the church.
It is, therefore, important to consider the fact that, Jane was supposed to accept the invitation to go to a grant counseling session but with the faith that she would be able to make the board see her point of view and that she was offering services to the community. The church needed to heed to the community ethics too which is a natural concern for as long as the church could not wield power or have a large scale of public responsibilities. Just as the early church had a lot to consider when they dealt with the relationship between the rich and the poor, between the ethics of sex and marriage and also on how one should relate to the civil authority, the board should share the same vision and carefully wield that power on a massive scale of public responsibilities.
It is up to the church to assist the poor in the society, and the street children who are forsaken with no one to take care of them and being offered an opportunity to be able to achieve that purpose financially is the best miracle. Jane should be more practical and use the knowledge of Christian ethics to convince the board that she was indeed doing nothing wrong and that her devotion and interest is always to serve all the people equally be it from inside the church or the one she was supposed to counsel at the grant for a faith-based initiative in job counselling.
Christian ethics involves trusting and doing the right thing and teaching the other Christians to do the same as they follow the example of Jesus Christ. Jane wanted to take the offer given by the Department of Labor in Washington but the board was against it, the fact remains that the board not only prohibited a faithful servant from offering help to the community, but they went against everything that the Christian ethics was fighting for. The early ordained ministers were sought to carve out a pure church from the midst of individuals whose morality was compromised, and the church used to be an inclusive community not just a place for the ethically unblemished and thats why Jane needed to go to the Department of Labor and take the offer so that she could counsel those who were lost and provide services to all.
Can Circumstances Excuse us from doing wrong, Like stealing because of Hunger?
Christians follow the example of Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. The ethics behind it is someone is not supposed to steal since the eighth commandment forbids the act and brands it as sinning. In this context, however, the circumstances are rather very difficult since a woman is on the verge of hunger and she has a little child who she is afraid would starve if she doesnt feed. It is not advisable however to encourage the act of stealing, but then the circumstances are rather tricky and understandable. In a human perspective, stealing food is undesirable, and most people would not despise an individual stealing out of hunger while they are starving. Though it can be understandable in the human point of view, it is still not the right thing to do since God does not condone it.
One can argue that the woman had an option to go to the farm and borrow the fruits that had fallen for her and her child and maybe they would have been welcomed in a safe manner and even be provided with water and shelter. The fact that the woman went and took actions into her hands can be considered as ethically correct, and it is also against the Christianity doctrines and ethics to steal, but it does not stipulate that one is allowed to steal under various circumstances.
The issue is so much debatable since the fate of the woman and the child depended on the idea that she was hungry and there was food. In her mind, she was not in a better state to make sensible and correct choices on whether it was ethically and morally wrong, what she considered was the fact that she was hungry and there were means that she could feed herself and her child. It would be better if someone is alive rather than dead due to starvation. The woman made a choice which was suiting her current situation of hunger, and in this case, she could not consider the difference between what is wrong and what was right.
In another view, taking something that does not belong to you is wrong both to the law of man and to the Christian law. With the Bible being strict about abiding the law, the woman was not thing something right even if she was not able to make a rational decision out of hunger and her childs too. Frequently we are faced with hard choices that leave me wondering that if they did not do it, then they would die. The woman could not risk going to ask for permission from the owner of the fruits since she did not want to guess whether the owner would give her the fruits or chase her away. She decided to take the law into her hands and took the fruits.
The situation of the woman was an ethical dilemma since it is correct that the Christian ethics forbids stealing, but one cannot watch his or her family perish from starvation while there is something that one can do. It is opposite to human sanity to do that. It is expected that a mother would do anything for her child and that is what the woman did when she jumped over the fence and stole the fruits for her and her child. It was an act of survival that was done out of a hard decision of ethics, and a person in that situation can be forced to commit a wrong so that they can avoid doing another wrong.
As much as two wrongs cannot make a right slogan is true, the thought of taking someones life who is helpless is also not right either. As much as it cannot be justified religiously on what the woman did, there is always a chance to confess the sins that one has done and try to mend the ways with apologizing for stealing since it was not out fantasy or mischief, but it was driven by circumstances of hunger and the pity for one's childs life. Christianity teaches us to avoid sins, and that includes even stealing at the slightest provocation. The woman who stole could not have risked seeing her child die and on that effect, she knew that once her child died, she could not get her back. She also was not sure what would happen to her if she was caught and therefore she never took the time to contemplate on the consequences of her actions.
Christianity teaches people to have faith in God for whatever they need and that they should not worry about tomorrow or what one eats since God would provide for them. For the individuals who turn back to Jesus and follow him is promised to be catered for in all the physical needs and whatever one would need in life. It does not mean that the woman who went ahead and stole the fruits was unfaithful to God, but the fact remained that she and her child were starving and the solution was right before them.
Christian ethics puts one between a hard rock and stone when it is a matter of a dilemma. The Bible indicates that one should seek first the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to them. It also means that God is good and knows that his children are in need and he will, therefore, provide for them, if one has sinned, they should seek for forgiveness and God will take care of the needs. As much as the scriptures are right and that they offer hope, if there is no source of food available, it does not mean that one should be naive and wait for God to provide.
Gods provision is rational from the human point of view, and God requires his children to be rational at all the time. This is to mean that he expects the people to be generous in helping the poor and the people who are in need. God provides for his children if they are also generous in giving out to the needy. The fact indicates that, the woman would have had another option of seeking out to ask for the fruits to the farm owners and if the farm owner as a believer, there is no way she could have gone without being fed.
All in all, it is at the time of weakness that people steal out the dire need and since God can understand that weakness, He offers forgiveness and repentance through confession. Stealing the things that...
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
