Introduction
Making biblically informed decisions for ethical dilemmas in one’s personal ministry context requires the use of the rules and principles to make judgments amidst the messiness of practice and real life. Often, we find ourselves faced by the possibility of conscientious discrepancy with one another, irrespective of having a nearly common foundation with respect to rules, values, and principles. This is because we are subject to the biases of our pride, fears, and selfishness and finite (limitation in our ability to predict and what we can know), that resultantly makes our rules and principles conflict at this level.
In practice, needs to resolve ethical dilemmas always arise, within which the actions to be taken and decision making require advancing several values and relevant rules at the expense of other values and the associated values. For instance, general code of ethics in ministry practice requires us to ensure confidentiality as well as a duty to warn. Though these seem to be good rules guiding us on how to make decisions as well as providing clear answers for multiple situations.[1] Nonetheless, they cannot be applied across cases such as where a congregant proposes that he could hurt his child or wife. For such cases, both good decision making and practice skill are needed to resolve the dilemma. Our ability to identify the appropriate facts and predict possible consequences for different courses of action is often limited, yet an action must be taken and decision made in one way or the other.
Considering such situations faced by humans, acknowledging how God works with Christians to grow in Christ’s image, and the critical role played by the Bible in guiding us, this paper examines how combining the deontological and consequentialist parameters can be used to develop a practical model for guiding ethical decision-making. The current paper presents the model as a simple problem-solving approach that assumes and is not a substitute for the development of Christ’s character and mind.
Utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters
Ethical decision making could be broadly viewed as one based on two forms of the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological criteria. These terms are a basis for describing two different measures of whether something is morally bad or good or if or not something ought to be done. The deontological criteria relate to moral duty or obligation.[2] The criteria necessitate identifying the rules and moral imperatives related to the situation and determining the ‘oughts.’ In Christianity, the criteria can be summarized by reflecting on “the will of God in such a situation.” [3]
A critical phase in the application of deontological parameters for decision making in an ethical dilemma is understanding the parameters themselves.[4] Some argue that ethics can be achieved by relying solely on deontological criteria or believe that deontological parameters alone are adequate in decision making without considering the consequences. For instance, with respect to the ninth commandment “Though shall not lie” (Exodus 20:16) is perceived to be an exceptionless and absolute rule that should be obeyed under all circumstances irrespective of the consequences. According to this model, when the Nazis asked Corrie Ten Boom (popular for her efforts in hiding Jews from deportation and arrests during German’s occupation of the Netherlands) if she knew any Jew, she ought to have directed them to the hiding place in her home.[5]
Therefore, attempting to resolve all moral or ethical dilemmas by invoking a specific deontological model alone, even where the model/principle is biblically based, could lead into decision making and actions that contradict God’s will. Typically, an ethical dilemma exists where several deontological principles are applicable but are conflicting to some level. For example, the Sermon on the Mountain and the Ten Commandments entail deontological parameters critical for guiding our understanding of Christ’s mind and adhering to God’s will. Nonetheless, they cannot be applied legalistically or mechanistically lest we indeed become Pharisees. Would “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) imply that we are required to never resist evil in any way?
Majority of Christians explicitly acknowledge that God’s will is completely embodied only within God’s trait of justice and love that was incarnated in Christ. Consequently, justice and love are regarded to be the sole ‘exceptionless absolutes’ per the deontological perspective. The scripture’s moral principles and rules avail crucial guidelines for comprehending how justice and love are in different situations. Nonetheless, they cannot be applied as absolutes or be enforced into legal systems that eliminate the need for making judgements.
Nevertheless, for humanity and God, moral reality has always remained embodied. This partly implies that the deontological ‘oughts’ should not be entirely isolated from the utilitarian or consequentialist principles. The utilitarian/consequentialist principles for ethical decision making relate to the results.[6] Christian based actions and ethical decisions need to always attempt to account for or consider the possible consequences of the action or decision and the end served. We often to some degree falsely believe that moral actions and /or judgments could be exclusively judged based on their consequences. That would only require determining whether the action or decision had a desired or ‘good’ result, if so, it would be considered a good act. Most Christians believe that valuing the consequences is equitable to an implicit acceptance of the means to the such end, irrespective of what it could be (for instance, terrorist activity as an opposition to unjust tyranny).
Adapting such an approach is no better than the fallacy of a single-minded deontological ethical decision-making process. Considering that some degree of deontological foundation is required to define a ‘good’ result, pure utilitarianism is accomplishable. Moreover, the ‘good’ results are not derivable from the raw facts of a case. ‘Evils’ and ‘goods’ ought to be balanced and prioritized against each other within the means and the ends. A key limitation of the utilitarian approach in ethical decision making is that at its best, the decisions cannot be more than predictions or guesses grounded on what we perceive the results could be, as opposed to be the actual consequences.[7] Therefore, encouraging the wife of the previously mentioned congregant to divorce her abusive husband may be based on the belief that he will be incapable of hurting her and the children, but that is not a surety.
Therefore, the ideal model for guiding ethical practice and decision making in the case the prementioned male congregant would be using both utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters of the case. Under this model, the first step would entail identifying and exploring the issue. This would include identifying the values or issues as stake, the desired ends, and possible alternative means as well as unintended consequences. The second phase would require identifying the moral imperatives of the congregant’s suggestion that he could hurt his child or wife followed by a determination of God’s will under such a circumstance. Additionally, there would be a need to analyze the principles at stake, particularly related to justice and love. The case would also require examining existing codes of ethics, rules, biblical injunctions, rule-governed exceptions, or commands appropriate for the case. For this case, the social work Code of Ethics ought to be considered.
The third step would involve exploring the utilitarian/consequentialist parameters. This phase would involve determining or predicting the possible intended and unintended results and evaluating the cost and benefits of an action or decision made (who are the beneficiaries and who is to pay). Moreover, the phase necessitates determining what is to be given up under each likely course of action and the values to be maximized or slighted. The fourth step would be prioritizing and integrating the utilitarian/consequentialist and deontological parameters by determining a course of action or decision that optimally maximizes the exceptionless absolutes of justice and love.
The fifth phase would require making a judgment based on act and character. After the collection and analysis of professional, biblical, and other relevant data, one should pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and wisdom. This would be followed by making a judgment and acting out of one’s character guided by Christ’s character while striving to do the best for the case and at the time. The last phase would encompass evaluating the experience, repenting or rejoicing, and determining whether to proceed or change with such an approach in the future.
Ultimately, making ethical decisions in evangelism requires an ethical integration of the Christian faith and one’s practice as a professional social worker, a task that often proves challenging. Applying both social work and Christian values in combination with principles of practice related to evangelism in a manner that upholds integrity for ourselves and clients/congregants is notably challenging too.[8] Nonetheless, practical and ethical judgments are crucial in our profession. Making such decisions is not simple. The process requires identifying, prioritizing, and acting guided by a combination of the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological criteria of a case.
Ethical decision making and analysis is crucial when faced by an ethical issue within which all values cannot be maximized simultaneously at the case level. Per the proposed combined model of decision making (the utilitarian/consequentialist and the deontological principle), an ethical dilemma exists where there are several conflicting legitimate moral obligations in a particular case.
For instance, one could believ in the client’s self-determination as well as the in the protection of human life, which are both legitimate moral obligations. Often, these values are not in conflict, but in such a case where a congregant threatens to kill or harm his children or wife, one is faced by an ethical issue whereby the taken course of action can compromise one or several personal moral obligations. Ethical principles and values could and do conflict at the case level.
Consequently, there arises a need to acknowledge what the Code of Ethics and the Bible can and cannot do for us. The Code of Ethics and the Bible could provide vital direction and guidance, but are inadequate in giving prescriptive models that will guide how we handle each new case, especially owing to the fact that not all values at a specific time are fully accomplishable and not all rules can be obeyed. In some instances, one of the multiple Code of Ethics and biblical rules may need to give way to an alternative to ensure the the maximum accomplishment of justice and love to the levels allowed by the situation. Hence, at the problem level, there will always be a need to be accountable for decision making that prioritizes our values while maximizing the ‘good’ being sought to the best levels possible.
Bibliography
Brittingham, Matthew. H. “‘Millions of Jews Died in That War… It Was a Bad Time’: The Holocaust in Adventures in Odyssey’s Escape to the Hiding Place.” Genealogy 3, no. 4 (November 15, 2019): 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy3040063.
Conway, Paul, and Bertram Gawronski. “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, no. 2 (2013): 216–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021.
North American Association of Christians in Social Work. Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice. Edited by T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly. Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016.
[1] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, ed. T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly (Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016).
[2] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, no. 2 (2013): 216–35, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021.
[3] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach” (2013).
[4] Ibid
[5] Brittingham, Matthew. H. “‘Millions of Jews Died in That War… It Was a Bad Time’: The Holocaust in Adventures in Odyssey’s Escape to the Hiding Place.” Genealogy 3, no. 4 (November 15, 2019): 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy3040063.
[6] Paul Conway and Bertram Gawronski, “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach” (2013).
[7] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, ed. T Laine Scales and Michael S Kelly (Botsford, Ct: North American Association of Christians in Social Work, 2016).
[8] North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Christianity and Social Work: Readings on the Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice, (2016).
write