Assessment 1: Christian Ethics and Public Responsibility (2026)

Course: RELS 240 – Christian Ethics in Contemporary Society

Institutional context: Mid-size public university, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies (Level: second-year undergraduate)
Weighting: 30% of final grade
Length: 1,200–1,500 words (excluding references)
Submission format: Word or PDF, uploaded to the LMS dropbox
Due date: Week 6, Friday at 23:59 (local time)

Assessment overview

Students analyse a specific contemporary moral issue through the lens of Christian ethical reasoning. The task draws on required readings, lecture material, and independent research, and it focuses on the development of a clear normative argument rather than personal opinion. Current marking practices in theology and religious studies emphasise clarity of question, use of primary and secondary sources, and coherence of written argument, so the rubric below follows those expectations.

Task description

Write a 1,200–1,500-word essay in which you evaluate one contemporary ethical issue using at least one major Christian ethical framework studied in this unit (for example virtue ethics, natural law, divine command, liberationist or feminist approaches). The work should show how Christian theology, biblical interpretation, and moral reasoning shape a considered response to your chosen issue.

Step 1: Select a focused topic

Choose one clearly defined issue that has a public dimension:

• Climate justice and ecological responsibility.
• Migration, asylum, and border policies.
• Criminal justice and mass incarceration.
• Economic inequality and labour practices.
• Digital technology, surveillance, and privacy.

Frame the topic in a way that can be answered within the word limit. Instead of treating “social justice” in a general way, frame a specific question such as “How should Christian ethics evaluate current border detention practices for asylum seekers?”

Step 2: Identify your Christian ethical approach

State which ethical approach you use, and briefly explain why it is suitable for your case. For example, a student might draw on Catholic social teaching and natural law for questions of economic justice, or on liberation theology for questions of race and incarceration. Show that you recognise the strengths and limitations of your chosen approach instead of presenting it as self-evidently correct.

Step 3: Engage with sources

Use both primary and secondary sources:

• At least one biblical passage interpreted in context, not as an isolated slogan.
• At least one theological or ecclesial document (for example an encyclical, denominational statement, or doctrinal text), where relevant.
• At least four scholarly secondary sources (2018–2026), such as peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, or chapters.

Show how these sources inform, support, or challenge your ethical reasoning. Descriptive summary alone is not enough; the essay needs to explain how the sources shape your evaluative judgment on the chosen issue.

Step 4: Construct your argument

Develop a clear argumentative line that runs from introduction to conclusion. The essay should:

• Present a precise thesis statement that responds to your research question.
• Provide reasoned support for your thesis, using evidence from texts and contemporary examples.
• Discuss at least one serious objection or alternative view, and respond to it.
• Indicate the ethical and practical implications of your conclusion for Christian communities today.

Readers should be able to trace how each paragraph contributes to the central claim, and how your analysis moves from description to evaluation.

Suggested structure

1. Introduction (approx. 150–200 words): Present the topic, state the research question, and give a clear thesis.
2. Context and issue description (approx. 250–300 words): Describe the contemporary issue, drawing on reputable reports or data where appropriate.
3. Theoretical framework (approx. 250–300 words): Explain the Christian ethical approach and key concepts that will guide your analysis.
4. Argument and evaluation (approx. 450–550 words): Apply the framework to the issue, assess competing considerations, and defend your position.
5. Conclusion (approx. 150–200 words): Summarise the argument and indicate key implications, without introducing new evidence.

Formatting and referencing requirements

• Use 12-point font, double spacing, and standard margins.
• Use Harvard, Chicago (author–date), or APA, in line with programme policy; be consistent throughout.
• Include a reference list with all sources cited in the essay.
• Avoid informal language, rhetorical questions, and unexplained personal anecdotes.

Marking rubric (2026)

The rubric draws on current categorical assessment criteria in theology and religious studies programmes, with five main dimensions: relevance, structure and organisation, analysis and critical thinking, knowledge and understanding, and academic style.

1. Relevance and focus (20%)

• High Distinction / First / A (16–20): Responds directly to the task with a clearly defined research question and thesis. Focus remains sharp throughout, and all sections relate to the central ethical issue.
• Credit / Upper Second / B (12–15.5): Responds clearly to the task with only minor digressions. Thesis is generally clear, though some paragraphs could connect more tightly to it.
• Pass / Lower Second / C (10–11.5): Addresses the topic in a broad way. Focus sometimes shifts to background material or personal commentary, and the thesis is vague or inconsistently applied.
• Fail (0–9.5): Does not engage meaningfully with the set task or chosen question. No clear thesis or central argument.

2. Argumentation and critical engagement (25%)

• High Distinction / First / A (21–25): Develops a coherent, persuasive argument that shows strong critical engagement with different perspectives. Reasons are clearly stated and supported, and counter-arguments are treated fairly and answered thoughtfully.
• Credit / Upper Second / B (16–20.5): Presents a well-organised argument with noticeable critical discussion. Limited engagement with objections, or some steps could be more fully justified.
• Pass / Lower Second / C (12.5–15.5): Offers a recognisable line of argument, but extended sections remain descriptive. Limited analysis of opposing views.
• Fail (0–12): Lacks a sustained argument. Points are listed without clear logical connection, or the essay largely repeats lecture content.

3. Use of sources and theological/ethical understanding (20%)

• High Distinction / First / A (16–20): Demonstrates a solid grasp of Christian ethical frameworks and uses biblical and theological sources accurately and thoughtfully. Integrates recent scholarship into the analysis rather than treating it as add-on quotation.
• Credit / Upper Second / B (12–15.5): Uses appropriate sources with reasonable accuracy. Some good connections are made between texts and argument, but a few sources are under-used or described rather than analysed.
• Pass / Lower Second / C (10–11.5): Relies heavily on a small number of sources or general textbooks. Some misunderstanding of concepts or limited connection between sources and ethical evaluation.
• Fail (0–9.5): Minimal engagement with required readings, limited or inaccurate use of biblical and theological material, or reliance on non-academic online content.

4. Structure and organisation (15%)

• High Distinction / First / A (12–15): Essay has a clear, logical structure. Paragraphs are well signposted, transitions support the flow of ideas, and the reader can easily follow the development of the argument from start to finish.
• Credit / Upper Second / B (9.5–11.5): Structure is generally sound. Some paragraphs are long or uneven, but the main line of argument remains visible.
• Pass / Lower Second / C (7.5–9): Organisation is basic but serviceable. Some repetition, abrupt shifts, or unclear subsectioning.
• Fail (0–7): Disorganised or fragmentary work that makes sustained reading difficult.

5. Academic style, referencing, and presentation (20%)

• High Distinction / First / A (16–20): Writing is clear, controlled, and appropriate for academic work in religious studies. Grammar and spelling are accurate. Referencing follows the required style consistently, and the reference list is complete and correctly formatted.
• Credit / Upper Second / B (12–15.5): Mostly clear academic writing with minor language issues. Referencing shows a few inconsistencies but is generally correct.
• Pass / Lower Second / C (10–11.5): Meaning is usually clear, though phrasing can be awkward or informal. Frequent minor referencing errors, or incomplete details in the reference list.
• Fail (0–9.5): Frequent language errors that impede understanding, or systematic failure to reference sources properly.

Academic integrity and use of online support

All work must follow university policies on academic integrity. Direct use of essay banks, ghost-writing services, or unacknowledged AI-generated material breaches these policies and will be investigated. Study support resources, including writing centres and library guides, are appropriate to consult, but the submitted essay must represent the student’s own research and reasoning.

A strong essay on Christian ethics and climate justice usually begins with a clear explanation of the concrete problem, for example the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on low-income communities, and then links this directly to doctrinal themes such as creation, sin, and hope. A persuasive line of argument often shows how central Christian convictions about the goodness of creation and the imago Dei challenge habits of consumption that treat people and ecosystems as disposable. A thoughtful student usually engages recent work in ecological theology and Catholic social teaching to argue that care for the earth is not an optional add-on but a core expression of love of neighbour and responsibility before God. Careful essays also acknowledge tensions, such as conflicts between economic development and environmental protection, and explain why a Christian ethic of justice and solidarity calls for structural as well as personal change in response to the climate crisis.

Scholarly references

• Francis, Pope (2015) Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Vatican Press.
• Conradie, E. M. (2020) Resilience in a Climate-Changed World: Reflections on the Role of Christian Theology. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 76(1).
• Deane-Drummond, C. (2019) Theology and Ecology across the Disciplines: On Care for Our Common Home. T&T Clark.
• Crawford, D. and Hovey, C. (eds) (2021) Ecotheology: A Christian Conversation. Baylor University Press.