The Idea of a Standard of Ethics

The "My Colleagues" and "My Fellowship" sections are particularly helpful, because they will guide pastors in areas they may not have considered in advance; when a situation is upon you, you cannot think objectively. For example, a retiring pastor may view things only from his perspective.

The rest were all fine, but the problem is an old one: one the one hand, often the people who need this list of ethics most are those who will not read them, or, if they do, will dismiss them. Those who would abide by them are likely already abiding by them. Yet, on the other hand, the generation coming up is amazing when it comes to what they do not know. Because of broken families and the nature of modern society, we have a higher percentage of people who do not join clubs, organizations, etc., (according to Bowling Alone) and we now have to teach ethics/courtesies that were part of normal society in the past but no longer are advocated in popular culture. Sometimes, folks, we have to teach people how to shake hands, how to introduce themselves to others, and what subjects are inappropriate for discussion.

Whether we are talking about manners (please, thank you, excuse me), attending church faithfully even when we are not pastors, or giving credit when we are using someone else's material, we do need to instruct.

On that last count, Rick Warren has not helped things by encouraging people to use his outlines and sermons. It is one thing to gain ideas or an illustration from someone's sermon, another to print it off and preach it (even acknowledged). If you want to say, "I got my basic outline from so and so," that is one thing (on occasion). But, like a good research paper, a sermon should be the bringing together of many sources, beginning with the preacher waiting before God and seeking to be Spirit-led. The lifting of sermons is a major ethical issue in the pastorate, IMO.

I agree that there is a power in officiality for a signed ethical code, but that also makes me cringe just a bit. That power is one that holds me to a course because either (1) I feel compelled by my own integrity to be consistent or (2) I think everyone knows I signed so I'd be looked down upon for not keeping my word. Either way it seems a first step toward (forgive the overused term, but...) legalism. While certainly we want consistent and honorable integrity, our primary focus on Christ demands that we want it in conjunction with his glory. The pledging of oaths apart from my personal commitment to Christ seems to me to be saying I need an extra motivator apart from my love and devotion to my Lord. And that is where my agreement with Ed comes in. The one who is devoted to Christ in ethical integrity will be ethical with or without the document. The one who needs the document to bolster personal ethical commitment to Christ is relying on something apart from love/devotion to his Lord to live right. That's Isaiah's point, I think, in telling us that our own righteousness--as good deeds apart from God--is still filthy rags. Forgive the Pirates of the Caribbean allusion, but I think there is value in these ethical statements as guidelines on which to meditate and determine course. But as a code requiring my signature, focus changes, and, I think, value diminishes.

Thanks, Chip,
I did hesitate to use the term legalism because it does tend to put in mind a heavy extreme.
But I think my concern is actually more with the motivation behind accountability. (That, I think, is the officiality to which Aaron referred). My question (and understand this as merely a question. I'm not shouting any accusations--just wondering out loud)...my question is whether there is not something a bit unhealthy about needing accountability to a person or institution or document to motivate me in a greater way than my accountability to Christ. It just seems to me that by acknowledging the need for accountability to something else, I'm flipping the priority structure around, now sure to do or not do something because the one or thing to whom I'm now accountable is seen as more serious than my previous accountability to Christ. That's where the tie to legalism comes in. If I protect above all else the right or wrong action without a definite hold on my motivational priority in Christ, I think I'm slipping. Again, I'm open here to being shown a different perspective. It's just this thought that makes me (as I said above) cringe just a bit.

I'm favorably disposed to the lists above. Outlining Christian duty in recognizable categories - without attempting to provide exhaustive detail or a rigid how-to program - is a healthy thing. Among other things, it brings clarity. If someone were considering joining a church, or if the church were searching for a new pastor, these lists may be quite useful. New Christians won't immediately learn how to live Christian lives by reading this (the law never does bring about moral change), but they may realize the scope of following Christ. I don't think the points on these lists are so specific or intrusive as to jeapordize Christian liberty. Similar lists can be found in the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the Ten Commandments.

Legalism occurs when lists, either biblical or man-made, are used to distinguish "good" Christians from "bad" Christians, and when the solution for people who are struggling with the list (not me, mind you) is, "Try harder!" Legalism is a danger with any law, even God's, but that doesn't make the law sinful. It's us.

It would help, IMO, to acknowledge that practicality is not necessarily unScriptural. Providing verses that define what is a Biblical mandate from what is practical would be good. But being sensible is not a bad thing- I venture to say most of the time practicality is based on Scriptural principles and wisdom. Common sense and functionality get the short end of the stick sometimes because it doesn't sound very 'spiritual'. But I would say that a 'code of conduct' should definitely stay more to the Biblical command side of things.

I would appreciate this sort of accountability of pastor to congregation, to know that the pastor and leadership are formally holding themselves to a specific code of conduct so that laymen know what they can expect and where the lines are. All too often the concerns of the congregation are ignored because the church leadership considers themselves above any accountability to the laity. For example, if a pastor's wife was a credit card happy spendthrift, the church would not be guilted into bailing them out because it's the church's 'duty' to provide for the pastor, and in a sense the church is blackmailed into cooperation with dire predictions that if the pastor were to step down to get his family in order, the church would fold and 'look at all the people who would be hurt if that happened'. So- if everyone knows what is expected as well as the consequences for not meeting those expectations, the chances of the congregation being manipulated in this way are slim to none.

Well, I've been silent here listening to other people's comments for a while to try to gain perspective (although I think I've been slightly misunderstood at times). And I think I it's been a profitable exercise for me. So let me try to express where I agree and refresh what remains of my concern.

I think Aaron's last comment sums things up well for the portion with which I agree. I certainly have no problem with doctrinal statements, creeds, or confessions. I also have no problem with constitutions, policy statements, and even communal commitments. I reread the IFCA standard for churches and have to say that I would have no problem with much of it that does deal with Christian community interaction and committed responsibility to each other. (For example, the finances section has nothing at which I can nitpick.) After all, as Aaron intimated, God made us for relationship, not only with him, but with those others who belong to him. As such we do have an accountability to each other as well as to Christ.

But I guess where I'm still somewhat uncomfortable is when the statements that I'm signing as a code for accountability purposes turns to those things which may be more purely regarded as involving my personal relationship to Christ. Of course, one could argue that any area even of the most personal nature in which I fail before Christ can have ramifications for the church community as well. Yet I don't want to sign a statement promising to you that I will try to maintain sexual purity because I think it clouds my responsibility to Christ and then to my wife. Now, I can hear the rustling of everyone ready to pounce against that last statement, so let me quickly try to think of a better example. How about #5 of the "Concerning Myself" section of the Ethics for Churches. By signing something committing to you my activity of right conduct in that regard seems to elevate my commitment to you in my conscious or subconscious mind so that I act a certain way BECAUSE of how I am perceived rather than because this is my responsibility before Christ to whom I must--MUST--maintain a sense of first priority.

The issue gets shaky because I'm arguing motivation here, and admittedly motivations are not those things about others that we should be capriciously interpreting. But surely we all know of people who have problems being one way in front of one group and another way in more private or personal settings. So, all this to say that my only worry (and I noted it in my initial comment as only a cringe) is that signing statements for others regarding personal commitment to Christ might contribute to a two-faced or mis-prioritized accountability.

I guess this could be seen as a waste of ink on so minor a point. But I really don't think concern for Christ filling our vision can be regarded as a minor point. (No more minor than the ocean-of-ink-drenched KJVO thread!)

Yeah, well, but, um,... I think though that what you're describing (if I understand it correctly) speaks more to my point. For those non or minor consequential (and personal) activities, why am I pledging to someone else that I'll be faithful in them? To give me a boost in order to act with integrity? See, I'm thinking that when I need some help to make sure I do the inconsequential (as far as hurting someone else), but right act, doesn't that mean I'm valuing something else over my commitment to Christ? If not, why is the boost a boost?

I'm sure everyone else on this thread is tired of me filling their inbox with notifications that I'm attempting another minor point. But, well, you raised me, Susan, and I didn't want to fold even though there's only a few coins on the table.