NEPAL EBENEZER BIBLE COLLEGE

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

TRANSFORMED TO TRANSFORM

YESHWANTH B. V., B. E, BD JULY- DECEMEBER 2013

[Christian ethics is very important and significant aspect of Christian life. This material is only a brief

outlook on the subject. This material should not be treated as a text book. Student is required to do

his/her own research and also can use this material for a comprehensive understanding. This

material deals with the definitions, understanding to other religious system of ethics, relationship

between Bible and ethics and Theology as well. Student is expected to draw insights and make a

Trinitarian moral response towards varied ethical realities]

2

CONTENTS

PART I

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

A. Definitions: Ethics, and Christian ethics; Difference between Moral and Ethics ....... 3

1. The word ‘Ethics’ and the difference between Ethics and Morals ............................ 3

II. Methodologies ..................................................................................................................... 4

A. Different types of ethical discourses ............................................................................... 4

1. Deontological ethics ..................................................................................................... 4

2. Teleological ethics ........................................................................................................ 4

3. Responsibility – Relationality ethical approach ......................................................... 4

4. Critique on methodologies .......................................................................................... 5

B. Religious systems of ethics .............................................................................................. 8

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8

2. Hinduism ...................................................................................................................... 8

3. Buddhism .................................................................................................................... 11

4. Islam ............................................................................................................................. 14

6. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 17

PART II

III. Bible-Theology ethics ..................................................................................................... 19

A. Bible and ethics .............................................................................................................. 19

1. Methodology: Different ways by which Bible is used in ethical reflection and an attempt to arrive at a relevant method of interpretation ............................................. 19

i. The nature of the Bible ............................................................................................... 19

ii. Problems involved in using Bible in ethics .............................................................. 20

iii. Three approaches not be used in relating Bible to ethics ...................................... 20

iv. Three alternative approaches .................................................................................... 21

v. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 22

2. Old Testament Ethics: ................................................................................................ 22

3. New Testament Ethics: .............................................................................................. 30

B. Theology and ethics ...................................................................................................... 32

1. Relation between theology and ethics: Different typologies .................................. 32

a. The image of God in the humans ............................................................................. 33

b. Natural Law and Christian faith ................................................................................ 33

c. The Church and Sacraments ...................................................................................... 33

d. Law and Grace ............................................................................................................ 33

e. Christian eschatology ................................................................................................. 33

2. Christological focus in ethical reflection: Bonhoeffer, Barth .................................. 34

3. Christian understanding of human nature and creation: Neibhur, Lehmann ....... 34

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 37

3

PART I

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Definitions: Ethics, and Christian ethics; Difference between Moral and Ethics 1. The word ‘Ethics’ and the difference between Ethics and Morals1

The word “ethics” comes from a Greek word “ethos” which means “the customs and the

character which distinguishes a particular people.”2 The words “ethics” and “morals” are

interchangeably used traditionally. Both basically carry connotations of duties and

responsibility a person has in a group of which he/she is a member and /or to some

transcendent being with reference to right or wrong conduct or ultimate purpose.3 The word

moral is now being used in a restrictive sense as an adjective. Morals are descriptive and ethics

is all about serious reflections.

Therefore, ethics is a reflection of a question ‘why’ of an action whereas our

actions may be guided by the religious, cultural and philosophical aspects. In this regard,

Chandran before defining ‘Christian ethics,’ he attempts to define “ethics” as a science that

systematically studies human conduct at individual level and at corporate level. Human

conduct, according to Chandran is a “conscious and purposeful action.”4 Therefore, to put it

together ethics deals with the human conscious and its product. However, human conduct

cannot be understood in isolation from cultural and social ethos of an individual. Therefore

ethics is also concerned with the “customs and mores of people.”5

a. Difference between ethics and morality

We have learnt that ethics is a reflection of our consciousness and its outcomes. What is

morality? What is the meaning of the word ‘moral? Is there a difference at all? The

answers may be diverging when you take into account of different schools of thought.

The word ‘morals’ comes from the Latin word ‘mos’ which means ‘customs or way of

1 Hunter P. Mabry, ed., Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader (Kottayam: Indian Theological Seminary, 1987), 1-5. 2 Ibid., 3. 3 Ibid. 4 Russel Chandran, Christian Ethics (New Delhi: ISPCK, 2008), 2. 5 Ibid.

4

life.’6 The word ‘moral’ as an adjective is used to describe “behaviours of a people

commonly regarded as right, good or appropriate.”7 As a noun, it is used to “refer to the

norms or principles held by a particular people regarding right or wrong conduct.”8

II. METHODOLOGIES

A. Different types of ethical discourses 1. Deontological ethics

Deontological ethical approach is based on obligation or duty.9 In other words it deals

with question of what is right and what is wrong. This approach emphasizes on the

obedience to the moral imperatives. For example the religious laws and the state laws

which largely deals with the question of “obeying the law” are ought to be followed to

be conformed to the community.10 All the religious laws, state laws are to be obeyed.

2. Teleological ethics Teleological ethical approach is goal oriented.11 It is an ethics of “aspiration, good or

end.”12 This approach is concerned with the highest good. In other words, this approach

raises question- “what is the highest good or end of life which I should seek to serve?”13

3. Responsibility – Relationality ethical approach Responsibility- Relational model of ethics has two dimensions- accountability and

responsibility. To be responsible means to be accountable. In other words, accountability

means to introspect upon one’s own action or to subject one’s self to scrutiny for the

action done. According to Mabry, this is responsibility in the network of relationships.14

In other words, to be responsible morally means that to respond to particular situation

with the knowledge of what is happening, and to be accountable to that response and a

“concern for faithfulness for human relationships”15 as we live in the network of human

relations. Religiously speaking, this approach raises questions like- what is God doing in

6 Mabry, Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader, 3. 7 Ibid, 3. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 6. 10 Ibid., 7. 11 Somen Das, Christian Ethos and Indian Ethos (Delhi: ISPCK, 2001), 6. 12 Mabry, Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader, 7. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

5

our history? How can we respond to his actions so as to be his people (relationship)?16 In

this relation, we need to ask what action is best ‘fitting?’

4. Critique on methodologies i. Deontological ethics:

In brief deontological ethics is the question of “ought” which is determined by

taking history, traditions and past mistakes into consideration. There are set of rules

which are to be obeyed. For example all religious codes of conduct fall under this mode.

These codes were interpreted in a legalistic, rigid, offensive and absolute ways.

According to Mabry, ethics which are obligatory and required to do as a duty are called

technically “deontological ethics.” For example the religious laws and the state laws

which largely deals with the question of “obeying the law” are ought to be followed to

be conformed to the community.

1. Critique:

This method is legalistic and promotes absolutism. It does not take the context into

account. This method does not deal with the core problem of human morality. This

method may offer what is ‘right’ for man but it doesn’t deal with the moral disposition of

man. Only knowledge of knowing right and wrong cannot bring about transformation

but a ‘self-consciousness’ of morality does. We can apply Paul’s ethical reflections here.

Paul’s ethical convictions are strongly rooted in the thought that ethical

realization comes about when one realizes Christ’s life, death and his teachings. Christ

has reconciled man to God and also with one another.

Paul’s greatest contribution is towards his reflection on the imperative moral law.

He talks more about the internalization of the law over the practice of the law. The

imperative moral law presupposes that man is still can act contrary to the law inside the

heart. He talks about the “self-consciousness” of the goodness. According to him,

“imperative law cannot produce the innate, unforced graciousness of conduct evident in

Jesus Christ which is so much more attractive and so much more fruitful than self-

consciousness goodness.” The moral conduct and the practice should go together.

However, Paul in response to the criticism over his thought about the imperative moral

16 Ibid., 8.

6

law, he responded by opining that inadequacy of the imperative moral law to achieve the

“necessary reorganization and renewal of human life.” (Rom. 7: 7- 25) He simply says

that “dying and rising of the self” gives a complete inner transformation of the

fundamental attitudes of men toward God, their world, themselves, and their neighbours.

ii. Teleological ethics:

The Greek word ‘Telos’ means ‘end.’ Teleological ethics deals with the ‘result.’ It talks

about the aspirations or good or highest good. In other words man should orient his

actions in the present keeping in view of the end. It presupposes that an action is right, if

and only if it produces highest good. This is called as “quantitative utilitarianism17.” It

also presupposes the rightness of the action as it tends to produce happiness. There are

variant models which follow this approach. They are Kingdom of God ethics, liberation

model and other worldly models.

1. Critique:

This model emphasizes more on the end result of the action and does not

give much attention on the present or the context. The orientation towards the future

alone can bring about disorientation in the present if doesn’t take into account of the

context. It approaches or analyses man’s action not on the basis of one’ s own context,

past and present but rather analyses in isolation from the context, past and the present.

iii. Contextual ethics:

Paul Lehmann is the proponent of this method. Deontology speaks about the

moral imperatives and Teleological ethics speaks about the goodness or rightness of

action keeping in view of the end result, irrespective of the context, past and present. In

other words both of the methods analyses one’s actions in isolation from one’s sitz-im-

leben. In order to address this issue, Contextual ethics emphasizes about one’s own

context and circumstances in analysing the one’s actions. In other words it interprets the

ethical reality in a contextual way focusing on the actual context. Lehmann’s contextual

ethics is called as “koinonia ethics.” Koinonia means “fellowship, communion.” This

comprises of human relationships. In other words, to analyse one’s action, according to

Lehmann, Koinonia is the starting point. It is about “what am I suppose to do” rather

17 The doctrine that actions are right, if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

7

than “what I ought to do.” Therefore human factor plays a major role in this method.

There are two dimensions to Lehmann’s koinonia ethics- God’s activity in history and

man’s discernment of God’s action and to be agents of change in the world through the

influence of God’s action in the world.

Under contextual ethics we have situational ethics which talks about action which

is applicable or fitting to a specific situation. The proponent of this model is Joseph

Fletcher. He talks about ‘obedient love or agape love.’ It simply means that one has to

relate love to the world by an careful analysis of what kind of action is required by love

in that particular situation.

Responsible- Relational model of ethics has two dimensions- accountability and

obligation. To be responsible means to be accountable. In other words, accountability

means to introspect upon one own action or the attitude by which that action is done.

Obligation presupposes relationship. According to Mabry this is responsibility in the

network of relationships. This model encompasses past, present and future. In other

words, to be responsible morally means that to respond to particular situation with the

knowledge of what is happening, and to be accountable to that response and a “concern

for faithfulness for human relationships” as we live in the network of human relations.

Religiously speaking, this approach raises questions like- what is God is doing in our

history? How can we respond to his actions so as to be his people (relationship)?

To summarize above model, three things we can observe here:

• Man the actor- who responds to an action

• Accountable to that action (Responsible)

• Awareness of the effects of his/her action in the network human relationships

(relationships)

1. Critique:

This model emphasizes more on the human factor. It doesn’t conform to the imperative

laws. It is not so much concerned with the virtue of the action or the result of that action

done. In this way it does not talk about the rightness or goodness of the action but rather

it talks about what is ‘fitting’ in that particular situation.

iv. Summary

8

In summary, no model of ethics is perfectly applicable and apt to analyse human actions and behaviour. According to Somen Das an integration of these models will help us to have balance and can achieve some discernment in our judgment of particular action. We also should take other sciences into consideration in analysing and understanding human behaviour. I would like to agree with Paul’s ethical teaching. According to him it is not the knowledge of right and wrong that makes difference, ethics has to do with man’s deliberate rebellion towards God with the knowledge of right and wrong. Paul’s ethical convictions are strongly rooted in the thought that ethical realization comes about when one realizes Christ’s life, death and his teachings. Christ has reconciled man to God and also with one another.

B. Religious systems of ethics 1. Introduction

Nepal is a pluralistic society with many religions, different castes and classes. It is a theological and evangelical task to understand what makes a Hindu a Hindu for a relevant dialogue with other religious world views. Without proper understanding of the ethical framework of the other religion, our Christian ethical response towards other religious people will be irrelevant. The purpose of this study is then, firstly, to have brief understanding of different religious ethical understanding. Secondly, to develop respect towards such ethical systems is very important. Thirdly, to search for ‘common grounds’ for relevant Christo-centric ethical response toward different ethical realities.

2. Hinduism The word is broad and vague. The inclusive nature of this tradition makes it

improper to even call this tradition as “religion”. This does not have any single concept that binds the whole system together. It is only seen as the “the way of life”.18 It is called as “Sanatana dharma” coming down to the people through eternity.19 It has got neither definite founder nor a particular scripture. This has eventually grown through the winds of time inculcating different aspects of cultures, civilizations whenever and wherever it has encountered with. This religion serves as an umbrella to many beliefs and practices that it has conglomerated. 20 This word is the outcome of British colonial administration. This word first derived form from the word ‘Hindu’ a Persian variant of Sanskrit ‘sindhu’, to denote both the region and people living nearby and beyond the Indus River.21 The word was the outcome of European invasion has constructed and coined the usage of this word altering the meaning according it European understanding.22 Then the Muslim invaders gave an exclusive term “Hindu” in 18th century and the meaning of the word again was

18 P.S Daniel, David c. Scott, and G.R. Singh, eds., Religious Tradition of India (fourth edition. Delhi: ISPCK, 2006)., 75. 19 K.N Tiwari, Comparitive Religion (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publisher, 2004)., 8. 20 “Hinduism - Defining Hinduism, Historical Overview, Sacred Texts And Sects, Principal Beliefs, Bibliography”, n.d., n.p. [cited 19 March 2009]. Online: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7751/Hinduism.html. 21 Martin Baumann, “Hinduism,” Religions of the World A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (California, Colorado, England: A B C C L I O, 2002)., 586. 22 Ibid. 586.

9

altered by the European understanding. This word was seen as the collection of people with so-called Heathen religion which is often called as “Gentiles”. In 19th century British Raj used this word ‘Hindu’ and the word ‘Hinduism’ is a derivative form it which was first used in 1829.23

i. The concept of Sanatana Dharama

We know that Hinduism is also called as ‘Santana Dharma’. In other words it is the

occupation that which is being carried out by the particular tradition. The word

emphasizes on the personal designation work according to the tradition. Since it is true

no one can hold all the positions in a society, this concept holds the plurality in the work

that is being carried out by the tradition. This is where different societies or Varnas or

classes of societies arise. We have Brahmins holding priestly office, Ksyathriyas- worriors

and kings, Vaisyas- the common people, and Sudras- servants.

Dharma in day-today context comes in regard to the practice of moral and ethical

values. There are different types of Dharma such as Vyakti-dharma- dharma of an

individual, Parivarika- dharma or family dharma, samaja-dharma, Rastra-dharma and

Manava-dharma or dharma of mankind.24 Now Vyakti-dharma includes observances of

the physical body. One has to take care his/her own health and also be conscious about

his/her personal hygiene. This includes ahimsa, akrodha (anger), Brahnacharya (celibacy)

etc. Now coming to Parivarika dharma (family), individuals make up a family and there

are some ethical and moral values that a family has to stand for. Here we can see a

‘graduation’ of stages to attain mokṣa. According to Ninian Smart, the ends of human life

are generally three. They are wealth (Artha), desire (Karma), and duty (Dharma). These

ends should serve the supreme end to attain Mokṣa.25

According to Robert D. Baird, Upanishads teach the concept of Karma & Rebirth.

Karma is the law of Case and effect which is applied to spiritual and moral realm. In

other words, every action (mental as well as physical) has a karmic effect on the

23 Ibid.586. 24 Swami Bhaskarnanda, The Essentials of Hinduism A Comprehensive Overview of the World’s Oldest Religion (Mylapore, Chaennai: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1998)., 98. 25 Ninian Smart, “Hindu Ethics,” ed. John Macquarrie and James Childress, A New Dictionay of Christian Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1986), 267.

10

individual. This causes the suffering and we need to attain liberation from this suffering.26

One way of achieving moksa is through asceticism. This notion of asceticism has to be

reconciled with the social responsibility at individual levels (Asramas) and at class or caste

level (Varnadharma).

Bhagavad Gita brings the above principles together. For example Arjuna, a

Kshatriya unwilling to participate in the battle as he feared that he had to kill his loved

ones. Krishna tells him that if he does not allow his class duty (Varna dharma) to reap

effects and the social order will be thrown in to confusion. Therefore, to achieve moksa,

he should remain unattached.

ii. Different interpretation from Hindu Philosophers:

a. Sankara (788- 820)

According to Sankara Reality is one. Every other thing other than Reality is ultimately illusion (Maya). This ‘maya’ is like a dream which appears to be real as long as it lasts but subrated by the realization of unity. According to him, perfection or moksa arises when one experiences unity and realizes that there are no distinctions between oneself and ultimate reality (Brahman). The one who attained this moksa is called Jivan mukta (one who is liberated while living). For a jivan mukta body is only an appearance. Therefore, he/she lies beyond all the distinctions and so also ethical imperatives. However, at an illusionary level, an individual needs ethical distinctions for ordering of existence. Those actions which lead to ego-involvement are bad and those which do not lead to ego-involvement are good.

b. Other modern thinkers:

Not everyone saw Reality as one. According to Ramanuja (1017- 1137), liberation (moksa) is not a realization of non-duality but it is ‘intuition27’ on the part of the soul that it is a mode of god. Modern thinkers emphasize on the reality of the world and place a correspondingly greater emphasis on social concern. For example, Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli (second President of India, who hails from Andhra Pradesh, India) and Swami Vivekananda admits that world has distinctions and it is provisional too (maya). However, they too admit that ethical concerns remain imperative.28 Aurobindo Ghose also admits ultimate reality of the world. He believes in ‘evolutionary ascent of the soul’ in which matter ascents to animal, animal to human consciousness and to the higher level stage and the most advanced one is ‘supermind.’ This is higher level of humanity, a

26 Baird, “Hindu Ethics,” ed. Carl F. Henry, Wycliff Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 289. 27 Intuition is the ability to acquire representation or knowledge about things without actually using reason. For a brief understand see., Gordon H Clark, “Intution,” ed. Carl F Henry, Wycliff Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 337-338. 28 Ibid, 290.

11

newly constituted Gnostic being who will be involved in action while indifferent to its fruits. The life of such is not governed by eternal laws but by the divine life within.

c. Christian & Theological response

The greatest task for a theologian is to find ways how to present the Gospel to Hindus

who believe in the doctrine of Karma. There are major differences between the view of

life in Hinduism and Judeo-Christian world views. The former has a cyclic view of life

and the later has a linear view of life. The former has God nothing to do with the fate of

the individual whereas in the later God is intrinsically involved with the history. The

former is very individualistic and the later has a synthesis of individualistic and

cooperative dimension. The former has a concept of moksa that has to be gained by the

merit whereas the later moksa comes from the grace of God.

Having stated the differences between these two world views, it is necessary for us

to analyse the doctrine of Karma theologically. In Judeo-Christian world view, we do see

a history as salvation history which is one of theme of the Bible. It presupposes that man

has fallen and God is involved in history to restore that relationship that was fractured. In

the doctrine of Karma, an individual is left to his own ‘karma.’ His inherited karmic force

will decide his birth. In other words the quality of his ‘karmic force’ will decide his life in

the cycle of Karma-Samsara.

However, in Christian world view, Salvation is free gift of God through atoning

work of Jesus Christ. In other words, Christ has broken the cycle of Karma and set an

individual free from his accumulated karma. Now, it is by imitating the person of Christ

one can develop his/her moral and ethical aspects of life.

3. Buddhism29 i. Introduction

Buddhism is one the major religions in the world. In Nepal it is the second largest religion. Buddhism arose as a reaction against caste system in Hinduism. Buddhist morality has special spiritual aims of faith. It consists of Buddha’s teaching which consists of diagnoses of human condition and prescription how that condition be alleviated.30 It

29 I have deliberately omitted the origin of Buddhism as it is not very much related to the subject matter. However, the founder of Buddhism is Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha was a Indian prince by name Siddhartha who renounced his royal luxuries and privileges in order find the answer for suffering in this world. After years of search, it was believed that he found answers to all his questions and finally became ‘Buddha (Enlightened one).’ 30 Ninian Smart, “Buddhist Ethics,” 66.

12

is appropriate for us to understand the Buddhist ethical and moral frame work to make a relevant and apt Christian ethical response in dealing with the people of Buddhist faith. In this section we will briefly try to understand Buddhist ethics and its framework and then we will Christian response to the same.

ii. Buddhist ethics:

Buddhism is non-theistic religion. It does not believe in the concept of super being.31According to Saphir Atyal, it is not a religion in a usual sense but primarily an ethical theory.32 He further opines that Buddhism addresses the problem of suffering rather moral evil33 (in Christian world view, both were addressed not at the peripheral level but at the existential and spiritual level, eg: Job, Habakkuk, Jeremiah and Christ and Cross). Buddhism has a philosophical dimension in which it considers morality and intellectual enlightenment are inherently interrelated.34 It also talks about ‘way of life’ (dharma) in which man is his own saviour. Man’s will is free; he is sole guide of his own destiny. He has unlimited number of lives for his self development. There are mainly two main segments in Buddhism- Thervada or Hinayana (the little vehicle) which follows the original teachings of Buddha; Mahanyana (great vehicle) which is more liberal and syncretism.

iii. The foundations of Buddhist ethical theory

There are mainly four foundations of Buddhist ethical theory. We will discuss briefly about each on.

a. The four noble truths (Arya Satya):

Firstly, the suffering (dukha) - all forms of existence has misery and pain both mentally and physically. Secondly, the cause of suffering (Dukha samudhaya) - desire for the individual existence is the cause of the suffering. Thirdly, the cessation of suffering (Dukha nirodha) - when desire is removed, suffering stops. Fourthly, way to cessation of suffering (Dukha nirodha marga) - this involves eight-fold path which a person may follow to liberate himself from the cycle of births and re-births.

b. Eight-fold path:

� Right view (resolve)- to have wholesome and unselfish motives

� Right speech- using only words that are worthy and useful

� Right conduct- Abstaining from killing any living beings, stealing, hatred,

sensuality and intoxication

� Right living- Rejection of luxury, using one’s life for the good of others

31 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 16. 32 Saphir P. Athyal, “Buddhist Ethics,” ed. Carl F. Henry, Wycliff Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 75. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

13

� Right effort- to avoid evil in a person by detachment from worldly desires

and thinking on positive values.

� Right thought- Contemplation on the transitoriness of life.

� Right concentration- meditation upon only one thing which leads one

into a trance state of rapture and happiness

� Right understanding

There are certain hindrances to the journey of 8-fold path:

� Delusion of reality- Thinking that the world is real

� Doubts- Created mental idleness

� False belief- Rites and ceremonies that would bring salvation

� Sensual desire

� Unkindness

� Desire for reward in the future world

� Spiritual pride

� Self-righteousness

� Ignorance

Removal of hindrances comprises four meditations- love, compassion, joy and peace. c. Self, Karma and Re-birth:

Man is complete in himself according to Buddhism. He needs no god or saviour. Yet man is part of changing process.35 Every act of man has a consequence and this accumulates karmic factor. The consequences of one’s action cannot be stopped. This is a theory called ‘theory of cause and effect (karma)’ which Buddha learned from Hinduism. However, Buddha taught that by mental effort man can control his present thoughts and actions thereby gradually bringing himself closer to his goal. However, man cannot learn everything in one single life. He lives through many lives. Inequality among men can explain in terms of re-births. If there is a good karma, the person will have good life after his death and vice versa.

d. Attaining Nirvana

The eight-fold path leads to a state of nirvana which is the final goal of all moral actions and intellectual development. It is ‘annihilation’ of personal identity or separate identity

35 I see a contradiction here because Buddhism belives that Man is complete in himself and at the same time it holds to the belief that he is also part of the changing process. Anything that is changing is not complete.

14

or separate individual life and one’s immersion into universal self- ‘like a drop of water into ocean.’

iv. Christian and theological response:

A serious Christian ethicist while interacting with other religious ethical world view should have respect towards the same. We cannot deny the fact that there are many similarities between Buddhist ethical teaching and Christian ethical teaching. For example, Ninian Smart opines that the concept of compassion (Karua) in Buddhism can be compared to agape love in Christianity.36 However, both world views diverge largely from theological perspectives. Christian world view is a theistic world view where as Buddhist world view in non-theistic. In Christian world view, man has fallen to sin because of his disobedience against God whereas in Buddhism we do not see any such aspect. In Christian world view, man cannot save himself and therefore requires a saviour for which incarnation becomes necessary. In Buddhism man is complete and he is his own saviour. In Christianity, ethics and moral responsibility is centred on Christ-consciousness whereas in Buddhism it is anthropocentric. In Christianity, good works are the results of our salvation which was given to us through the sacrifice of Christ which can be realized in us with the help of the Holy Spirit. In Buddhism, to attain Nirvana, one must do good works for the accumulation of good karma.

In Christianity everyone is made equal and in fact made in the very image of God. In Buddhism, there is inequality because of the belief of the cycle of Karma. Finally, in Buddhism, one helps his neighbour in order to attain good karma where as in Christianity one loves his neighbour because he/she loves God first. Therefore, Christian ethical frame work is very much unique when compared with Buddhist ethical frame work.

4. Islam i. Introduction

Islam is the second largest populated religion in the world. The Muslim population in Nepal constitutes for 4.2 % of 29, 890, and 686 (July 2012).37 That means the approximate Muslim population in Nepal is 12, 50, 000. Looking at the dynamics of the population growth of Muslims and also other religions, it is necessary for us to have a brief understanding of Islamic ethical system so as to formulate a relevant Christ-centric ethical response.

ii. Islamic ethics

Islam, like Judo-Christian world views follow strict monotheism.38 The basis of Islamic ethics is the absolute authority of the will of Allah and the right conduct ordained by Allah.39 The final and ideal revelation of the character and the will of Allah is given to

36 Ninian Smart, “Buddhist Ethics,”67. 37 “Nepal Demographics Profile 2013”, n.d., n.p. [cited 8 October 2013]. Online: http://www.indexmundi.com/nepal/demographics_profile.html, accessed on Oct 8th 2013. 38 Muslims and Jews however, refute Christian faith because of the belief in ‘Trinity’ which they deem it as another form of polytheism. 39 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 16.

15

Mohammad who himself is the supreme example for the formation of ethics in every Muslim.

a. Sources of Islamic ethics

There are two major sources for Islamic ethics- Quran and Sunna (traditions). Quran includes specific commandments of God on faith, manner of life for every believer according to which all men, Muslims and non-Muslims will be judged or rewarded.40 Sunna (traditions) supplements Quran. Since Quran does not give every detail of conduct for every circumstance, Muslims the way of life of Mohammad as the pattern of life to be followed as recorded in the traditions. Islam, from its genesis and development influenced by the moral ideas of ancient Arab tribes. Therefore, according to D. M. Donaldson opines that one can find other elements derived from pre-Islamic tribal morality like honour, loyalty to the chief and the clan, hospitality, courage, and endurance.41 Especially the tribal loyalty has been refined, redefined and Islamized as a religious kinship – “all Muslims are brothers.”42 In the early stages of its genesis, Mohammad stood as a reformer demanding personal belief, morality, good intentions commanded in Quran. Disobedience is seriously punished.

b. Ethics of Quran

Ethics of Quran can be summed up into “Believe and do right.”43 The ethics of Quran forms the ethical behaviour grounded in God (Allah) the merciful, to whom absolute submission is essential, the angel who record the deeds of men, the prophets, Mohammad being the last, resurrection and the day of judgment, the predestination if all actions, good and evil and the Quran being God’s final revelation. In the light of the above, a Muslim must shape his everyday conduct by “doing right.” Of all the human virtues, Quran gives primary importance to beneficence- bestowing of benefits especially in the form of alms, poor & the needy, orphan, stranger, slave and the prisoner.

c. Five types of ethical action

� Obligatory (fard): A required duty. Rewarded if you do it, punished, if you

do not.

� Preferred (Mustahabb): Reward for doing, but not punished if you don’t.

� Permissible or allowed (Halal): You may or may not do it. Neither

punished nor reward for doing or not doing it.

40 Samudre, “Islamic Ethics, 342.” 41 D. M Donaldson, “Islamic Ethics,” ed. John Macquarrie and James Childress, A New Dictionay of Christian Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1986), 315. 42 Ibid. 43 Samudre, “Islamic Ethics, 341.”

16

� Disliked (Makruh): Some actions are disliked, but not forbidden. If you do

them, you will not be punished. If you do not do them, you will be

rewarded.

� Forbidden (Haram): must not be done under any circumstance. Otherwise

punishment ensues. Abstinence brings reward.

d. Five pillars of Islam (Five obligatory duties)

1) Reciting the Kalima- “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his

prophet.”

2) Reciting the daily prayers (Namaz)-generally five times a day.

3) Observing the fast in the month of Ramzan (Roza)

4) The giving of the alms (Zakat)

5) Undertaking the pilgrimage- Mecca in person or by proxy (Hajj)

e. Moral actions

The moral actions of a Muslim are also governed by Islamic idea of sin, i.e., “what Allah forbids.”44 The Quran repeatedly stresses on some things (halal) which are permitted and others haram (forbidden). Muslim theologians divide sin into two types- Kabira (great sin) and Saghira (little sin). Under Kabira (great sins), sins like murder, adultery, disobedience to God and parents, evading Jehad (holy war), drunkenness, usury45, neglecting Friday prayers, fast of Ramzan, forgetting the Quran after reading it, swearing falsely or by any other name-‘than that of God.’ The sin of sins is heresy (Shirk) - sin of associating a partner to God. Saghira (little sins) includes lying, deception, anger, lust. These can be easily forgiven if the greater sins are avoided and if some meritorious actions are performed. Islamic ethics allows polygamy46. Muslims are allowed to have up to four wives but only if he treats them equally. Divorce in Islam is very easy. It is exclusively prerogative of the husband. A Muslim can divorce his wife at any time and for any reason by repeating thrice the formula – “I divorce thee.” Islam sanctions slavery and slave trade though Muslims were called to treat slaves mercifully. Islam prohibits the manufacture and use of intoxicating liquors. It also forbids music, dancing, gambling, and the use of religious images and pictures and of certain meats and food.

44 Ibid, 342. 45 The practice of making immoral and or unethical monetary loans. It is a sin to take interest on loan that is given. 46 Man can marry more than one time.

17

iii. Christian and theological response47

As we have observed, Islamic ethics basically depends on the Quran, its teachings and interpretations in traditions and also in their belief in Allah and Mohammad who is their role model. One cannot deny that there are many similarities between Islamic and Judo- Christian ethical frameworks. Therefore, when dealing with a Muslim, a Christian has so many ‘common grounds’ in order to present the uniqueness in the message of Christian faith. The most important divergent is Christian belief in the concept of ‘Trinity.’ Muslims refute Christian faith as they feel it is equivalent to polytheism.48 Trinity reflects an ‘I-thou’ relationship. Trinity is a community within which Father is in communion with the Son and the Son is in the Father and Holy Spirit also shares this unique relationship. We find this ‘relational-dimension’ within Godhead which we do not find in Islamic world view. According to Barth, Jesus Christ is neither a demigod nor an angel49 nor is he a simple prophet. He refers Jesus Christ as the ‘second ‘mode of being’50 of God.51 That brings us to the third ‘mode of being’ of God who is not a different personality but same essence of the Father and the Son, who helps us to bring the realization of God-consciousness in us. We see diversity in unity here. It is this ‘I-Thou’ relational dimension, the Bible teaches and commands Christian to imitate in their day-to-day lives which forms the ethical framework and also it is the basis for the Christ-centric moral action. This is the reason we can summarise the Christian theology as ‘God-neighbour’ theology where a person who realizes God-consciousness in the self due to the Trinitarian act in himself, is commanded to love his/her neighbour. This entails the whole of the Christian message which is a very unique to Christian world view when compared to Islam.

6. Summary According to Russel Chandran, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ is addressed in India

(Nepal) to a moral vacuum, but to a people already influenced by very lofty ethical teaching and committed to high standards of moral life.”52 It is true that Nepal is only Hindu state in the world until recently democracy was instituted. We as Christians should keep in mind that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has come to Nepal not into a context

47 Here my views are very brief and therefore students are required to form their own respective view after a thorough research on the subject matter. This is a subject worthy to researched further. 48 I am not going to deal with how Trinity is not a polytheistic belief, as I assume that the student at this level is well aware of arguments and defence on the same. Here our focus is on how the concept of Trinity influences Christian ethical frame when compared to the monotheistic view of God in Islam. 49 Stanley J Grenz and Roger E Olson, 20th Century Theology God and the World in a Transistional Age (First Indian Edition.; Secundrabad: Om books, 2004), 73. 50 Ibid, 73. 51 It is not to be understood as Modalism when Barth says ‘mode.’ Barth does not use the word ‘personality’ as it projects a plurality of personality in God which cannot be as God always has one personality. For example, if Jesus Christ is a different personality other than the Father, then there is no revelation of the Father in Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, according to Barth, Father, Son and the Spirit are the divine ways of being that eternally subsist within God in absolute unity. 52 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 18.

18

of immoral state but to a state where there are certain concepts of right and wrong or good and bad. Russel Chandran is right is asking that whether we are able to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ in such a way that the ethical and moral framework of other faith goes beyond their own concepts of good and right. In other words, goodness revealed in Jesus Christ should challenge the ethical systems of other faith to go beyond their own concepts of good. The revelation of Jesus Christ not only should challenge other faiths but it should challenge us as well to respect and understand the significance and uniqueness of Christian ethical system much better in the light of other ethical system. Only when student of ethics inculcates such attitude as stated above, will there be a true, relevant and Christ-centric ethical response toward other religious ethical system.

19

PART II

III. BIBLE-THEOLOGY ETHICS

A. Bible and ethics 1. Methodology: Different ways by which Bible is used in ethical reflection and

an attempt to arrive at a relevant method of interpretation a. Introduction

It is often perplexing and at times frustrating to understand how we can use or to understand how it has been used to arrive at moral response to pertinent ethical issues. It is a tantamount for a Christian ethicist with regard to the usage of Scriptures for a relevant moral action. We often find in our churches and Christian homes that the Bible is used in a legalistic way and at other times in spiritual way. According to 2 Tim. 3:16, the Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” It is undeniable fact that Bible is the source of “authority” for moral discernment and judgment for the Christian community.53 To understand the role of the Bible and its usage with regard to ethics firstly we need to have a comprehensive understanding the nature of the Bible. We will briefly look into this aspect from a theological vantage point both from fundamental and liberal perspectives. We will also look into serious problems in using Bible in ethics and then we will see some relevant suggestions on the same.

i. The nature of the Bible When it comes to the role and the usage of the Bible, we are not just talking about its ‘authority.’ We need to understand the nature of the Bible itself. Bible did not fall directly from heaven.54 It contains human words believed to be divinely inspired by God. Therefore, it is both human and divine words.55 It is a ‘conjunction’56 of divine and human but we do not know precisely how they are together.57 According to Chalcedonian perspective this conjunction is not to be “confused, transmuted the one into the other, divided into separate categories or contrasted according to area or function.”58 Fundamentalist perspective identifies this ‘conjunction’ as the identification of human word with the word of God. They also justify identification of biblical ethics with that of Christian ethics.59 Therefore, a rule or a command is presumed to be normative for the church today.

53 Allen Verhey, “Bible in Christian Ethics,” ed. John Macquarrie and James Childress, A New Dictionay of Christian Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1986), 57. 54 Ibid. 55 Evangelicals and Liberals debate over whether Bible is the word of God or word of God. Does Bible contain the word of God or it is the word of God. Irrespective of the difference, they both agree about divine and human agency involved. 56 Verhey, “Bible in Christian Ethics. 58” 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 58. 59 Some scholars do not agree that biblical ethics are same as Christian ethics. Biblical ethics are more confined within the context, culture and time of biblical times and one cannot use such ethics for the contemporary moral isuses. In that sense, there is a difference between biblical ethics and Christian ethics. Christian ethics is a moral reflection based on the scripture to address certain contemporary moral issues.

20

Liberalism perspective identified this ‘conjunction’ as a contrast between human words and the divine.60 This contrasting view poses a task for an ethicist to identify the word of God with the Scriptures. This task of identifying involved a careful note in the contemporary needs and problems to the Spirit of God in the age. Therefore, there is a rise of contextual studies over textual studies. In summary, Bible is the Word of God. Nevertheless, God cannot be reduced to the level of Scriptures. If God is reduced to the level of Scriptures and Bible is used as the only authoritative source for different moral actions, then we are running to the ‘error of biblicism and bibliolatry.’61With this in mind, now let us probe into some of the serious problems in the usage of the Bible in ethics.

ii. Problems involved in using Bible in ethics For Christians, a great majority of them, Bible is regarded as the source. However, Bible also has been regarded as a source of personal devotion for the nurturing of personal spiritual life than as a resource for “understanding and participating”62 in the contemporary moral struggles. We also often see how Bible has been misused. For example, Bible has been quoted in support of slave trade and on the other the same has been quoted against slave trade. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see how layman is confused and perplexed over the relationship of the Bible and moral struggle.

This leads to three crucial implications on the life of the church and its members. Firstly, the members may resolve to be isolated from the moral struggles thinking Bible is only for personal spiritual growth. Secondly, the members may accept the on-going social situation as something that has been ordained (planned) by Scripture and therefore, it is their ‘fate’ to be discriminated or ill-treated. Thirdly, members may involve revolutions and secular movements as they lack biblical knowledge. Therefore, it is a ‘responsible-task’ as Bible student and Christian ethicist to respond constructively to moral struggles as he/she relates bible to ethics.63 Keeping in this mind let us see how Bible ought not to be used in ethics.

iii. Three approaches not be used in relating Bible to ethics Before dealing with the subject matter, we need to clear about two assumptions we often make about Bible and ethics. Firstly, we should treat Bible as a bag with ready -made answers. Mabry point such an assumption as a ‘major fallacy.’64 The moral issues we find in the Bible and the responses to it are of a different time than ours. They do not have the problem of nuclear war, bio-medical issues and so on. According to Mabry,

60 Verhey, “Bible in Christian Ethics,” 58. 61 Mabry, Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader, 80. 62 Ibid., 73. 63 Since there is confusion over how to relate Bible to the moral struggles and come up with a constructive response, church often looks for seminaries and theological institutions on such matters. It is saddening aspect that even seminaries and theological institution struggle with the paucity of material on such matter. Another problem is that ethicists often read into the scriptures without proper exegesis of the scripture which leads to ‘what- they- say’ rather letting the Scripture speak for itself and then drawing insights from the same. 64 Mabry, Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader, 75.

21

what we have in the Bible are “moral injunctions directed to particular people in particular circumstances-to their sitz im leben. Second assumption is that Christian ethic is about ‘imitating’ biblical morality.65 This assumption leads us into a fallacious thinking that history and culture are static and the Bible presents solutions for all the times. Keeping the above two assumption now let us see these three commonly and most widely used approaches in relating Bible to ethics which are to be avoided.

� The proof text method In this method a verse or a portion of the text taken out of context and then used one’s own moral claims. According to Mabry, there are two fatal flaws. Firstly, it ignores the availability of other text on the same subject in the Scripture. For example, if Rom 13 calls for the submission to the state, then in Rev 17, it calls the state a monster. Secondly, this approach ignores that moral injunctions in the Bible were shaped by the changes in the historical situation. Therefore, it is fallacious to think the moral principles of the Biblical times will serve the same purpose of the contemporary moral problems.

� Spiritualization method In this method, every moral issue is spiritualized. For example the feeding of the 500 may be interpreted as feeding the spiritual hunger of the people.

� Separation method In this method, the Bible is deemed irrelevant to the present human struggle and is separated from the same. Christians, who are involved in liberation movements, face the danger of separating Scriptures as they feel it is time consuming to engage moral reflection based on the Bible. On the other hand they also feel it is irrelevant to apply biblical principle to the present moral struggles.

iv. Three alternative approaches Keeping in view the above three rejected approaches, the question that we have to face is how, then we should use the Bible? Ethicists often resort to three alternate approaches. One is Deontological, teleological and responsibility- relationality approaches. We have already studies what these methods are at their functional value. Now, we will look into these with regard to how these approaches use the Bible.

� Deontological approach This approach emphasizes on commandments, rules and obligations in the scriptures are timeless and we are obliged to obey. The problem with this approach is that it turns out to be legalistic- “to regard Bible as a comprehensive moral handbook providing propositional truths and prescriptive answers to all moral problems in the form of rules and codes which must be literally obeyed.”66 Sometimes these rules and regulations are emphasized to an extent there is a danger of running to error of Biblicism and bibliolatry.

� Teleological approach Teleological approach sees Bible not as set of rules and regulations but rather as providing certain notions of ultimate good that God intends for everyone. One problem with this approach is that it does not take into consideration of the context. It also 65 Ibid., 76. 66 Ibid., 79.

22

assumes that Bible has already provided a blue print of the Kingdom of God looks like and something that can be achieved through our efforts.

� Responsibility-Relationality approach In this approach the use of the Bible is not seen as a “revelation of morality but the revelation of the living God.”67 It is not about obedience to the set of commandments but it is about response to the living God as we are in ‘I-thou’ relationship with Him. This approach concerns with the activity of God. According to Gustafason as quoted by Mabry opines those who take this approach should not think about morality deduced to some rules, but it should about God and how we relate to His presence and power?68 In that sense the specific commandments and rules are not to be viewed as laws but they are expressions of our “personal commitment and relationship with God within the context of Covenant.”69 Like any other approach, this approach is not perfect. For example, how do we know what God is doing in history now? How do we determine His activity? What tools do we have to understand what God is doing? According to Mabry, this approach, in its extreme form may turn into relativism- the feeling of ‘correctness’ about one’s own discernment and disapproving others.70 Another reason is when we say the activity of God in Jesus-are we referring to Jesus’ activity as teacher or Christ’s activity as Lord.

v. Summary The use of the Bible in ethics is very important aspect. How we view and use the

Bible will make difference in our moral response. One of the reasons for the confusion and frustration in the church is because of lack of material on this matter. As we studied Bible should not be approached for proof text, spiritualization and separation from the moral struggles. However, we do have alternative approaches such deontological, teleological and responsibility-relationality approach. However, each of these approaches has their disadvantages as we have seen. Among these, Responisbility- relationality is most used and accepted approach in the way this approach uses the Bible. Therefore, in dealing with the moral issues, we always not have exact situations in the Bible. Hence, this call for a serious exegetical study of the Scriptures in its own canonical and historical context and the insights may be applied to the contemporary issues. However, the insights may be irrelevant to certain moral issues. Therefore, we are left with Responsibility-relationality approach where you approach the Bible as not set of commands but as an expression of our commitment to the revelation of activity of God in Christ.

2. Old Testament Ethics: a. Ethical teachings of Pentateuch (shalom, covenant, Law, liberation)

67 Ibid., 81. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid., 82.

23

i. Introduction

It is erroneous to jump into the text with our own thoughts and prejudices and force the text to speak by quoting several proof- texts. Our intention should be then to enter into their world and trying to understand their experiences in their own contexts and thereby drawing insights to apply to our context. Now, ethics is such an agenda that we need to investigate, analyze and bring out the implied meaning in and through the Old Testament times. So, our task is to understand how Israel perceived and experienced their relationship with God and how that relationship in turn reflected in their ethical and practical ideals as an individual and as an community as a whole. To understand the ethical outlook of Israel we need to understand the three dimensions on which it stands. These three dimensions are theological, sociological and economical. The question that we need to answer in this article is what it means to live as the people of God.

ii. Covenant

The context is that of creation, fall, election, redemption and consecration. Many

scholars debate with the sequence of these themes especially that of election and

redemption. They say that election has taken place after Exodus. I would like to go along

with my professor Dr. Eliya Mohol who argues that God has redeemed those whom he

has elected or with those whom he already has covenanted with. It is in this context God

revealed his identity through his words and acts in human history. Therefore it is God’s

story in which he redeemed his creation through his gracious act of salvation. It is in this

world view the people Israel perceived and understood the ethical obligation of God’s

salvafic act.

Our task is then to analyze the ‘ethical understanding’ of the people of God

through theological dimension. Theological dimension consists- Who is God (God’s

identity), What God does (God’s acts)? What God says (God’s word)? And God’s holiness

and presence.

iii. God’s identity:

Ethics are very much related to God’s identity, character, will and action.

Therefore Old Testament ethics are theological. Identity means recognition of an

individual on the basis of a relationship. It is “I-thou” relationship in which “I” perceives

himself in the light of “Thou” vice versa. When it comes to “God-human” relationship,

man perceives who he really ought to be in the light of his relationship with God. It is

from this unique relationship Israel draws their meaning for existence. The word “God”

is a generic term and we have to distinguish between “God” and “the Lord of the Bible.”

24

The Hebrew word for “Yahweh” is “יהוה” which is translated as “Lord” in the Bible.

Interestingly this word is derived from the verb which indicates an action. In other

words, it is the act of Yahweh proved who truly was God.

The identity and the character of God are very much important to the ethical

teaching of the Old Testament. God of the Bible is not just any god that was mentioned

in the Bible. He is known by what he does that qualifies the notion of “being God.” The

recurring phrase “Israel went after other gods” was considered not just a religious breach

but also unethical. This is because idolatry has sociological, economical and religious

degrading effect on the people of Israel. Therefore we can say that the ethical

understanding of the Old Testament depends upon the identity of God, the Holy one of

Israel.

What do we imply from this? Are, we, as Christians, as the citizens of the new

Kingdom, reflecting God’s identity in and through our lives? We boast about our belief

about the Triune God then how are we reflecting our belief in our words, actions and

relationships. Are we just complacent? Let us grapple with this thought as we are to

project his image on us to the people around. So that when they see us they should see

our Lord and God.

iv. God’s act

God is the author of life. God of Israel is known by his acts. He acts first and calls us to

respond. This is the fundamental ethical teaching of the Old Testament. It is God who

came down in search of a man. Our God is a “missionary God.” It is this aspect that

separates the faith of the Israel from its contemporaries. It is God’s act of grace that

redeemed man from his predicament. So, ethics becomes a matter of response and

gratitude within the framework of God’s relationship with the people of Israel. So

therefore ethics is not something that is to be followed blindly. This is an inherent

resultant response of gratitude to God’s act of grace.

Exodus presents a paradigm for establishing the people of God. It is very

interesting to see that God did not give the law when he met Moses in the burning bush

but after he delivered them from the hands of Egyptians, he gave them the law. People of

Israel didn’t have to follow the rules in order to be delivered. It is rather pure act of grace.

25

Israel’s redemption is not the end in itself. It should be accompanied with service. Serving

God is an ethical obligation. Therefore, law is a matter of response and a means to be in

the fellowship of God’s community. The Israelites were to maintain the law in order to

maintain their relationship with Yahweh. The point here is that law itself begins with

what God did in their past calling the people of Israel to the obedience unto the law in

order maintain their relationship with Yahweh and also their identity as the people of

God.

What do we imply from this? In order to be called as “Christians” are we

responding rightly to the Grace that redeemed us from our sins on the Cross? Or are we

simply taking grace for granted. Remember the Old Testament Law has provided a

paradigm how to conduct ourselves in all aspects of life so also Christ’s act of grace on

the Cross should penetrate into all aspects of our lives. We need to allow Christ to

transform us from inside out. This will imprint on us His image so that people may see

Christ in us so that Christ is magnified through our lives. So, therefore let’s be conscious

of what God is doing in our lives and grab every opportunity to lift him up by being

ethically upright.

v. God’s word

Our ethical response in not only to who God is and what he did in our history but also

to what he said. God involves in our human history not just by his deeds but also by his

words. This deed-word aspect is clearly stated in Deut. 4: 32- 34:

Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? Has any other person heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testing’s, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Deut. 4: 32-34 This text speaks about the unique experience that the people of Israel had. They

not only led by God out of Egypt but they heard His voice which has never heard of

among their contemporaries. God’s word is creative, instructive and transformative. It is

instructive in the sense it guides man in right paths. This is the reason the Law which

26

was given to Moses is a guide of conduct to the entire community. It is to this Law

which was spoken by God, the people of Israel were asked to serve. It is transformative in

the sense that this Law that was spoken penetrates into all the aspects of life of a man-

from his raising out from his bed, to his public and private matters. If the people of Israel

maintain their allegiance to this “Spoken-Law” by God, they would be able to maintain

their unique identity as the people of God. The experience of being guided by God

through his spoken word makes Israel unique among the nations. God’s very word is a

guidance of life for them (Ps. 147: 19-20)

The revelatory aspect of God’s word in the form of Law is a “gospel” to us. We all

know the word “Gospel” means “glad tidings.” Therefore, Law is a matter of joy as it

leads our paths to life. Law declares or reveals the mind of God and the one who obeys

and follows the “revealed” law will gain wisdom and life and also close fellowship with

God (Ps. 19: 7). This revealed law not only imparts knowledge of God but also wisdom

to conduct oneself with its warning and reward (Ps. 19: 11). In words of David it is “a

lamp to my feet and light for my path” (Ps. 119: 105). David is using a strong ethical

metaphor. In other words even our ethical response is guided by God’s word. Therefore

we have nothing to boast about. Whatever we do, we do within the framework of God’s

revealed word.

What do we imply form this? We need to be conscious of God’s word in our

hearts. If we are in tune with God’s word, we would be able to maintain our identity in

his kingdom. We also should know that His word is not “legalistic” but it is spoken out

of love for us. Therefore our ethical response to God should be in love and humility.

vi. Holiness of God

We see God repeatedly emphasizing on his holiness in order to call the people of Israel to

be holy, “And be holy for I Am holy.” (Lev 11: 44). Many a times we tend to think

‘holiness’ as one of the attributes of God which is a wrong conclusion. Holiness is in the

very nature of God as John E. Hartley points out to this as “quintessential nature of

Yahweh as God.” Yahweh revealed himself to the people of Israel as a holy God. The

holiness of God is relational which demands the people of Israel to be holy in order to

continue their relationship with Yahweh. So, being holy is just not a ritual exercise but it

27

is a day-to-day exercise. This holiness has to be demonstrated by Israel’s obedience. This

is the overall message of the book of Leviticus. Therefore one has to be ritually, morally

and ethically clean in order to maintain the relationship with Yahweh. In case of failure

there is providence for sanctification through the sacrifice.

The other aspect is the “presence of Yahweh.” The laws whether civil, criminal or

ritual were given in the presence of God. The presence of God is very central for

Israelites. Koch as was quoted by Hartley says that this presence is a blend of happiness

and fear that is the result of being in the presence of Yahweh. The presence of Yahweh is

manifested in the beaming glory that is devouring. This glory demands Israel

community to be holy. The law codes help Israelites to maintain purity and holiness in

the presence of Yahweh.

What do we imply from this? How are we reflecting God’s holiness in and

through our lives? Are we really conscious of his presence amidst of us? God’s holiness

and presence demands purity. Unless we are purified we cannot stand in his presence. In

other words it is impossible for us to be one among the people of God unless we are

purified. So, in order to live as the people of God we need to maintain our ethical

obligation to God thereby reflecting his glory and channelling his presence to the people

around us.

vii. Summary

Living as the people of God by reflecting God’s identity, by remembering his salvific act

of grace and by spoken word of law gives us a meaning and purpose for our lives. Living

as the people of God is not an end in itself. We are also called to be a “witnessing people”

by living as the people of God. The ethical dimension of the Old Testament gives Israel a

missional thrust. This missional thrust is not going out or sending out but it is witnessing

God’s identity, God’s acts, God’s word and his holiness and presence in and through their

lives as the people of God. This makes them very unique among the nations. In other

words the people of God are channels of blessings to the nations.

In the light of our understanding of Old Testament ethics, how can we apply them in our context today? In this attempt we cannot bypass the ultimate revelation of God revealed unto us on the Cross of Calvary. Cross has internalized our ethical obligation to God. It is no more something written with an ink and a paper but it is

28

written on our very hearts. Therefore, our ethical obligation is an inherent response to God’s gracious act on the Cross. Christ is our ultimate model. It is an imperative for us to imitate him. However, it is very sweet and good to hear all this but how far we are able to fill the gap between our beliefs and practices? Are we ethical while we write our assignments? Are we ethical in our relationships? Are we ethical in subjecting ourselves for accountability? I would like to challenge you with these questions. Let us live like the people of the new covenant. Thus says the Lord, “I will put my Law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other “know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord;...” Jer. 31: 33-34.

b. Ethical teachings of Prophets

Prophets played a very important role in the ethical formation of the people of Israel. Firstly, they are covenant pointers. They constantly reminded the people of Israel about the covenant relationship with Yahweh. The concept of covenant is very much important in terms of their daily life and worship. Secondly, they constantly reminded about the holiness of God. Holiness of God is a very dynamic concept. God by nature is Holy and He cannot co-exist with sin. Therefore, the laws and regulations help them to approach God very carefully. According to Chandran, “obedience to the law is the touchstone and measuring rod of their covenant relationship with God.”71 Thirdly, the prophets spoke against the economic injustice, oppression of the helpless and poor. This is because they firmly believed God is God of love and He has preferential attitude towards the marginalized. The first category of the key and underlying principles of the ethical teaching of the prophets is justice, mercy, and truth which is fundamental attributes of God.72Secondly, the election of Israel as God’s people- God has chosen them with purpose. The purpose is service-Service to man and God. Election is not static in that sense but it is dynamic. Thirdly, reflecting exemplary quality of life in individuals as well as a community based on their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Fourthly, responsibility towards the corporate life-holiness is not only an individual and personal matter but it has to be reflected in their responsibility towards their neighbour. Covenant considers every aspect of the neighbours’ life to be sacred. Therefore, if community is corrupted, no one should claim the individual goodness.73

c. Ethical teachings 8th century prophets

The 8th century prophets raised the existing ethical ideals of Israelites to a higher level. They presented more of a social ethics which involves God’s demand for justice and righteousness rather than hypocritical temple rituals and sacrifices.

71 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 34. 72 Ibid, 35. 73 Ibid, 36.

29

i. Amos

The key ethical theme in Amos is Justice. He calls the people of Israel to practice justice in the on-going burgeoning of wealth and oppression of the poor. He brings the words of judgment from the LORD. For him, “what God desires is the practice of justice (Amos 5:4-15). God despises the festivals and songs of the unjust and the wicked who worship him.”74 One unique aspect with Amos set the judgement in a universal context. Judgment is not only for the people of Israel but to all the nations who practices injustice (Amos 1:3-15).

ii. Hosea

The key ethical theme in Hosea is disobedience to the covenantal requirements. He exposes the Israel’s unfaithfulness by explaining it through his own life as he marries an unfaithful woman. For Hosea, God is a faithful husband who never forsakes His people. He will remain faithful to His covenant to Israel. With this in mind, Hosea condemns hypocritical religion and practices of Israel. He also pleads with Israel to return to God who is their first love (Hosea. 12:6).

iii. Isaiah 1-39 (proto-Isaiah)

Proto-Isaiah’s basic emphasise is on the sovereignty of God over all the nations and through this emphasis he draws the ethical insights such as righteousness and justice as the expression of the holiness of God. He also presents an eschatological hope of peace among the nations (Is. 2:4). Along- side this eschatological hope, he envisions a messianic rule who establishes justice and righteousness. He also condemns the fundamental sin of pride according to Chandran.75 Pride is the prince of all sins. It is an attitude to dethrone God and enthrone oneself in His place. All other sins are symptoms of this core disease.

iv. Micah

The key phrase of Micah is “what does the LORD require of you?” Mic. 6:8. Based on this emphasis he condemns spiritual and religious hypocrisy and at the same time calls the people “to act justly, to love loyalty, to walk humbly with God” Mic. 6:8. This requirement is nothing but an undivided obedience to the Law and practice of justice with undergirded commitment and love towards God.

d. Later prophets

i. Jeremiah

Jeremiah is well known for his deep emotional struggle and also his solidarity with his people. The key theme is immediate judgment. It is that light Jeremiah proclaims God’s judgment, the reason for the judgment and the acceptance of the judgment. According to him, evil is not just the superficial action of human beings but it is the found in the inner being of man, i.e., the heart.76 As Chandran puts it, “human conduct is derived from the state of the inner being. The root of sin is a hardened or a stubborn heart (Jer.

74 Ibid, 36. 75 Ibid, 38. 76 Josianic reformation took place during Jeremiah. It has brought certain changes in the life of Israel (Judah). Nevertheless, the change is only superficial.

30

7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 23:17).”77 Therefore, the circumcision of the heart is more essential than the ritualistic circumcision of the flesh. He gave a very practical advice to the exiles to settle down even as they live as exiles in a foreign land. He reminds the people that it was because of the disobedience to the covenant, they were punished. However, he also asserts the ‘new covenant’ that God himself initiate which will be the base of new ethical transformation (Jer. 31:31-34).

ii. Ezekiel

Ezekiel’s teaching is very much similar to Jeremiah. He also talks about new heart which calls for a radical response to God’s covenant (Ezek.11:19-20; 36:26-27). According to R. E. O. White, the teaching about the wicked living if they mend their ways which is contrasted to righteous person sins which will not guarantee him salvation is a milestone in biblical ethics.78 For Ezekiel, religion and morality belonged together. He emphasised on that morality is a direct fruit of one being in “direct and close fellowship with God.”79 According to Ezekiel ideal life is in obeying God’s covenant.

3. New Testament Ethics: a. Ethical teachings of Jesus (Focus on Kingdom of God)

According to Russel Chandran, Jesus did not fulfil the law by giving another set of ethical laws but rather he internalized the law. Secondly, he points out that Christian morality is not in the obeying laws but it is the reflection of the relationship with God. Thirdly, Jesus inaugurated the sovereignty of God or Kingdom of God. According to Russel Chandran the characteristics of the Kingdom of God can be seen in Jesus Himself- the nature of the Kingdom of God. Secondly, according to Russel Chandran, the nature of the Kingdom of God is reflected in the teaching and ministry of Jesus Christ for “censure, admonition and warning.” Thirdly, the teaching is calling of renunciation of the world but it not a call to the path of asceticism. It is a call to surrender to God in obedience. Fourthly, the teachings of Jesus present a contrast between the value systems between Kingdom of God and of the world. The judgment is done based on the same contrast. In response to the question of what is morality of the Kingdom of God?” Russel Chandran opines that Jesus knew the importance and significance of the inner purity over and against the practice of the moral code and it cannot address the problem of moral disposition in the heart of man. According to Russel Chandran, the other aspect in the ethics of the New Testament is Jesus and the grace of God which projects a shift from the observance of moral code to repentance which is a “grace outlook.” According to Russel Chandran the nature of the moral commands of Jesus has to be understood from four aspects. Firstly, the understanding that Jesus did not teach his disciples of his own teaching but he taught what he had learnt from the Father. Secondly, Jesus moral commands are a shift from Jewish particularity to inclusivity of all. In other words it is universal in nature. Thirdly it is an internalization of the law. Fourthly, Jesus points out to the distortion of man’s relationship with God by sin.

77 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 43. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.

31

i. The Sermon on the Mount

The Sermon on the Mount can be compared to the “Words” of the Law in the Old Testament. Sermon on the Mount is an ethical teaching by Jesus. The writer might have collected all the teachings of Jesus and made it available as a guide of conduct for the early Christians. However, the Sermon on the Mount is not imperative commandments but they are requirement of the “active self.” In other words the Sermon on the Mount has summarized and internalized the law and the prophets. Jesus through the Sermon on the Mount made us to realize the reality and the presence of Kingdom of God in the present. In other words the Kingdom of God is realized here and now and anticipates a culmination at the end. Therefore, the implications of the Sermon on the Mount are applicable irrespective of time and space. The other dimension to the ethical teaching of Jesus is God’s love. The Sermon on the Mount not only makes us to realize God’s rule over us but also his love. He is just God who demands kindness, love, mercy, forgiveness. The one who violate any of these violates the law of God.

ii. Difference between the book of the Covenant and the Sermon on the Mount

There are significant differences between the book of the covenant and the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus. The first distinction is that Jesus addresses to the one who is worried about “next day’s food supply.” The second one is the attitude towards the neighbour. He stresses more on the relational aspect of the community which should reflect the relationship with God. Finally, the aspect of reward and punishment was seen in different sense. In the Sermon on the Mount the action of men does not begin with an expectation of merit that fetches a reward but rather it reflects the nature of God, his mercy and love.

b. Ethical teachings of Paul

i. Paul’s letter to the Romans

Paul’s letter is the most significant for the ethical reflection of the Christian Church. Though it was written in A. D. 59, its message still is relevant to this day. Its relevance can be traced by its influence over the early church father like Agustine, Calvin and Luther. These Church father understood Christian faith in dominantly Pauline terms. The letter of Romans presents us Paul’s “ripest thought in most complete form.” It projects Paul’s understanding of the human situation and the depth of his religious insight. However, according to the authors, there are some prejudices over the understanding of the letter of Romans as many scholars see this letter as a “speculative theology” but a deeper look into this letter especially themes like “The Righteousness of God through Faith for Faith” throws some light of its implications to be applied in one’s own life. Firstly the message of Romans coincides with the message of Amos as it opens a moral indictment over the Gentile culture. Secondly this letter ends with a series of moral imperative and counsels and its central portion is concerned with the significance of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the letter of Romans provides us most important teachings of the moral life of man and Christian conduct. According to Paul, it is not the knowledge of good

32

and evil that matter but the deliberate rebellion to do good knowing what is evil. In that way man is revolting against himself. Therefore man is subject to sin and man has become its slave. Paul’s teaching and Jesus teaching coincides in way that man is not morally health because of the fact of the fallen nature of the first man and he needs to be redeemed before he acts. Fourthly, the Christian analysis of human situation presents us that man is a free citizen in the kingdom of God but the fall to sin has distorted and frustrated man’s destiny and his moral conduct which is contrary to God’s moral law. This is background over which Paul develops his thought and presents us a “practical theology” of the “the Righteousness of God.” Fifthly, Paul never conformed to the idea of the duality of the life of the world as the realm of good and evil as made by God. Whether evil is present, God is the author and ruler of all. He is sovereign. God is the ultimate reality. He made himself known to us in the person, life and death of Christ. Paul’s ethical convictions are strongly rooted in the thought that ethical realization comes about when one realizes Christ’s life, death and his teachings. Christ has reconciled man to God and also with one another. Sixthly, Paul’s greatest contribution is towards his reflection on the imperative moral law. He talks more about the internalization of the law over the practice of the law. The imperative moral law presupposes that man is still can act contrary to the law inside the heart. He talks about the “self-consciousness” of the goodness. According to him, “imperative law cannot produce the innate, unforced graciousness of conduct evident in Jesus Christ which is so much more attractive and so much more fruitful than self-consciousness goodness.” The moral conduct and the practice should go together. However, Paul in response to the criticism over his thought about the imperative moral law, he responded by opining that inadequacy of the imperative moral law to achieve the “necessary reorganization and renewal of human life.” (Rom. 7: 7- 25) He simply says that “dying and rising of the self” gives a complete inner transformation of the fundamental attitudes of men toward God, their world, themselves, and their neighbours. Seventhly, the ethical reflection of Paul is also concerned with concept of “neighbour.” In other words the internal transformation of man is also concerned with the neighbour. There are three dimensions to this transformation- internal, unforced and gracious love and practicality of in applying to the neighbour. In this way he is juxtaposing individual factor with the social factor of man. Finally, Paul’s ethics is also concerned with the social solidarity of the Christian. In his anatomical explanation of the body of Christ where each member with their respective consciousness will carry out their respective function with the direct relation with the head which is Christ is something very unique. This interplay and intertwining of man’s relationship with the self, God and individual is a significant contribution of Paul’s ethical reflection.

B. Theology and ethics 1. Relation between theology and ethics: Different typologies

According to Russel Chandran in his book Christian ethics, pp 73-83 opines that starting point of our ethical reflection should not be from the theological foundations but from the awareness of the context in which we interact with the realities and the experience of

33

it should be reflected in our ethical decisions. However, I don’t agree with Chandran as the ethical and moral reflection first has to be from theological point of view and then to be applied to the context.

a. The image of God in the humans According to Russel Chandran, humans have a special place in the creation. Secondly, he opines that humans are part of creation. Thirdly, humans are bound by the laws of the nature just like any other creature does. Fourthly, humans cannot be understood by the set laws but can fully understand by their relationship with God. Fifthly, essential humanness depends upon the relationship and accountability to God. According to Russel Chandran humans who were made in the image of God do not fully share in that image. The goal and purpose of the image of God is to reflect the same image which is struggle in which God is constantly involved with his creation. To understand this dichotomy Russel Chandran expounds this theological affirmation in terms of freedom, personal confrontation, and affirmation that humans are sinful after the fall.

b. Natural Law and Christian faith According to Russel Chandran early church fathers were influenced by Stoic teaching of Natural law. They believed that the whole universe exists in harmony with the natural laws and by conforming to these laws human can know what is right and what is wrong. He further points out Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on theology and ethics in which he says that the capacity of human reasoning is to discover what is given through natural law. However there other church father who rejected his opinion. As Russel Chandran points out, for them divine law can alone be a basis for Christian ethics.

c. The Church and Sacraments According to Russel Chandran Church is a way of calling to have a foretaste of kingdom of God and the goal that God has set for the humanity. According him there are two greatest sacraments in the church. One is Baptism and Eucharist. These sacraments are reminder of God’s act of salvation in Christ and his mission to the world.

d. Law and Grace According to Russel Chandran one of the greatest errors is to dichotomize law and grace as two contradictions. For him, Law is an expression of grace. He points out to the struggle of Paul in explain this aspect. He further explains that grace does not nullify law. According to him, in struggling to keep the word of the law based on human efforts we may not experience the grace of God. This is the same problem that the Pharisees had. Russel Chandran compares the relationship between the law and grace with relationship between body and skeleton. In other words, according Russel Chandran we have constantly scrutiny the law on the basis of demands of love and grace of God.

e. Christian eschatology According to Russel Chandran Christian eschatology is hope- a simple hope. This hope as points out to Jurgen Moltmen is a “passion for possible.” Firstly, according to Russel Chandran, Christian eschatology is an ultimate triumph of God over evil. This is the hope that we have in Christ. This hope is not just an end of history and the beginning of a new creation. According to Russel Chandran this hope calls us to orient ourselves in the present to address and voice out against injustice in order to project the glimpses of the Kingdom of God here and now.

34

2. Christological focus in ethical reflection: Bonhoeffer, Barth80 a. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)

Bonohoeffer talks about ‘religionless Christianity.’ For him, Christianity is not a religion. Though he is concerned about the social ethics, he had a strong evangelical commitment and expressed the demand for ‘costly discipleship.’ In other words to be the disciple of Christ, we have to be ready to pay the cost. This theological mindset has influenced his interpretation of Christology differently –imitatio Christi For Bonhoeffer Jesus is ‘the man for others.’ Christ is the authentic man. In this way, he has secularised Christianity. The world is not divided between Christ and the devil but it is solely and entirely the world of Christ. For him, Christ is the reality and we are to participate in that reality. In that sense, Christian ethics how the reality in Christ is taking effect; its purpose is participation in the reality of the world in Jesus today.

b. Karl Barth (1886-1968)

Karl Barth is considered as the most influential Christian thinker. He was also called as modern church father. His theological method is dialectical which explains that man has no innate capacity to have the knowledge of God. In order to have the true revelation, God from above should come down to man. This coming down to man is an event for Barth, in which God revealed Himself in Christ.81 Jesus Christ is the self –revealed truth of God. According to him everything rest on Jesus Christ, so also our ethics and morality. In his book Church Dogmatics, Barth deals with ethics. For him command of God is grace in action. In other words, law is grace in action. It is in this framework he deals with ethical issues like marriage, the family, the neighbour and respect for life. He also believed that the Lord’s Prayer ‘you kingdom come’ commits a person to struggle for human justice in all spheres.

3. Christian understanding of human nature and creation: Neibhur, Lehmann a. Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)

Reinhold Niebuhr is more of a social ethicist and an apologist than a theologian. He emphasized on the practical implications of Christian faith to the society. In his own words, he was interested “in the defense and justification of the Christian faith in a secular society.”82 Now let us see some of his perspectives which directly or indirectly related the field of ethics. Firstly, his concept of “proximate justice”83is very unique. According to him our moral responses or ideas of a perfect society cannot be fully realized or achieved by our

80 Ibid, 92-96. 81 Grenz and Olson, 20th Century Theology God and the World in a Transistional Age, 72. 82 Ibid, 101. 83 Ibid, 102.

35

own efforts. For example, the kingdom of God can only be achieved by God himself. However, the kingdom values are a standard for our society. Secondly, moral ignorance in the collective behaviour of human even though as individuals they may be highly ethical is another ethical principle we find.84 In that he combined two divergent theological themes that man as created in the image of God as an apex of God’s creation and human sinfulness.85 In other words, whatever human efforts for perfection, they cannot bring out perfection. A perfect society or the kingdom of God cannot be achieved historically but by only God’s intervention. However, the kingdom stands as a reference for building up our society on kingdom values but with anticipation for God’s intervention. Thirdly, his dialectical view of love and justice is to be noted. For him justice without love ceases to be justice. I think it is vice versa. Even if we have achieved our best in our attempts we have to acknowledge our sinfulness.86 Fourthly, Christian ethics is an “impossible possibility” within our history but it is ‘possible impossibility’ through God’s intervention.

b. Paul Lehmann

Paul Lehmann is the proponent of contextual ethics. Deontology speaks about the moral

imperatives and Teleological ethics speaks about the goodness or rightness of action

keeping in view of the end result, irrespective of the context, past and present. In other

words both of the methods analyses one’s actions in isolation from one’s sitz-im-leben. In

order to address this issue, Contextual ethics emphasizes about one’s own context and

circumstances in analysing the one’s actions. In other words it interprets the ethical

reality in a contextual way focusing on the actual context. Lehmann’s contextual ethics is

called as “koinonia ethics.” Koinonia means “fellowship, communion.” This comprises of

human relationships. In other words, to analyse one’s action, according to Lehmann,

Koinonia is the starting point. It is about “what am I suppose to do” rather than “what I

ought to do.” Therefore human factor plays a major role in this method. There are two

dimensions to Lehmann’s koinonia ethics- God’s activity in history and man’s

discernment of God’s action and to be agents of change in the world through the

influence of God’s action in the world.

84 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 93. 85 Grenz and Olson, 20th Century Theology God and the World in a Transitional Age, 103. 86 Chandran, Christian Ethics, 94.

36

Therefore, for Lehmann primary ethical reality is the human factor, the human

indicative in every situation of ethical decision making. This ethical decision making

should be drawn owing to the specific action of God in Jesus Christ.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY Athyal, Saphir P. “Buddhist Ethics.” Edited by Carl F. Henry. Wycliff Dictionary of

Christian Ethics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. Baumann, Martin. “Hinduism.” Religions of the World A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of

Beliefs and Practices. California, Colorado, England: A B C C L I O, 2002. Bhaskarnanda, Swami. The Essentials of Hinduism A Comprehensive Overview of the

World’s Oldest Religion. Mylapore, Chaennai: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1998. Chandran, Russel. Christian Ethics. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2008. Clark, Gordon H. “Intution.” Edited by Carl F Henry. Wycliff Dictionary of Christian

Ethics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. Daniel, P.S, David c. Scott, and G.R. Singh, eds. Religious Tradition of India. Fourth

edition. Delhi: ISPCK, 2006. Das, Somen. Christian Ethos and Indian Ethos. Delhi: ISPCK, 2001. Donaldson, D. M. “Islamic Ethics.” Edited by John Macquarrie and James Childress. A

New Dictionay of Christian Ethics. London: SCM Press, 1986. Grenz, Stanley J, and Roger E Olson. 20th Century Theology God and the World in a

Transistional Age. First Indian Edition. Secundrabad: Om books, 2004. Mabry, Hunter P., ed. Christian Ethics- An Introductory Reader. Kottayam: Indian

Theological Seminary, 1987. Ninian Smart. “Buddhist Ethics.” Edited by John Macquarrie and James Childress. A

New Dictionay of Christian Ethics. London: SCM Press, 1986. Samudre, Vasant B. “Islamic Ethics.” Edited by Carl F. Henry. Wycliff Dictionary of

Christian Ethics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. Tiwari, K.N. Comparitive Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publisher, 2004. Verhey, Allen. “Bible in Christian Ethics.” Edited by John Macquarrie and James

Childress. A New Dictionay of Christian Ethics. London: SCM Press, 1986. “Hinduism - Defining Hinduism, Historical Overview, Sacred Texts And Sects,

Principal Beliefs, Bibliography”, n.d. No pages. Cited 19 March 2009. Online: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7751/Hinduism.html.

“Nepal Demographics Profile 2013”, n.d. No pages. Cited 8 October 2013. Online: http://www.indexmundi.com/nepal/demographics_profile.html.