The Realtionship Between Doctrine and Ethics

In “The doctrine of God and theological Ethics,” a collation of papers from a conference held at King’s Collage, London. In the introduction editors Alan Torrance and Michael Banner (No! Middle name is not Bruise) give an analytical framework for doctrine and ethics. They outline four ways of understanding the relationship between Doctrine and ethics (synonym categories includes, “Theology and Morals" or "Beliefs and Behaviors").

The first is a relationship of doctrine and ethics. This view assumes that ethics are prior to theology. Following Kant, it holds that what we do informs what we believe. The most extreme form clams that theology ultimately collapses into ethics because "statements about what God is and what God does are really to be treated as statements about what we should be and do" (p. 2). Such thinking assumes a humanistic view of religious knowledge thus theological thinking goes from reality to God.

The second view is a reversal of the first, in this view doctrine is prior to ethics. Following Bonhoeffer and Barth, ethics is an elaboration of doctrine and "no autonomous ethical principles can function as determinants of doctrine's character and content" (p. 3). Theological thinking goes from God to reality. Doctrine is understood as the systematic and logical articulation of revelation and from they description of the world doctrine gives ones ethic in the world can be discerned.

The third view understands the independent nature of ethics and doctrine. They are not prior to or subordinate to one another, but as having quite different spheres or concerns, with no necessity of conflict.  In doing theology and doing ethics different questions are asked. They can be complicacy in there conclusions but think through questions from different perspectives. Ethics is rooted in reason and theology in revelation. God gave doctrine and God gave the law, both are revelation but law is a retelling of the natural law. This view is represented variously by quietism, pietism, and some natural law theorists (pp. 3-4).

The fourth view is the most open. It observes the relationship between doctrine and ethics is a messy one. It affirms the validity the above three view and clams that in reality, the way doctrine and ethics relate to one another is more complex than the prior three views hold independently. Doctrine and ethics are interdependent and interrelated at varying points. Thus the challenge of this forth position is to extend beyond a mere criticism of the other three positions, and to deliver positive content (p. 5). This position clams that in reality all three above views make valid points. 1.) Behavior does readily and reinforces beliefs. Further that on occasion some doctrines can be seen to have context exclusively rising from reason and experiance. 2.) Logically and cognitively understood, beliefs direct behavior. If God is a God of relationship then doctrines informs ethics. 3.) Beliefs and behavior can be contradictory. Behavior does not causally follow as a way of necessarily ones beliefs. Beliefs only act as categories of discrimination.

We can understand this relationship by using an analogy to the marital relationship.

1.    Ethics to Doctrine is like matriarchy. Wife to husband.
2.    Doctrine to Ethics is like patriarchy.  Husband to wife.  
3.    Doctrine and Ethics is like egalitarian relationship. Husband and wife think independently of one another but can come to the same conclusions.
4.    Reciprocal relationship between Doctrine and Ethics is like complementary relationship. Husband and wife are different and compliment each other in different ways.