You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘ethics’ tag.
[this post derives in large part from a comment i made in the vigorous and ongoing discussion to this post on my blog]
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is exactly one ethical principle and that it is universal and absolute, but also contextualized and played out in specific cases. In Christianity, it is called the Golden Rule; almost every other major religious tradition has an almost identical formulation. In Kantian ethics, it is called the Categorical Imperative. In modern political terms, it is called “sustainability.” In all cases it is a way of expressing the conviction that ethical action consists in reciprocity and mutuality of action.
The reason this is universal and valid is because it is the natural ethical conclusion of the idea that every human person has absolute and equal worth. (In Christian terms, the human person in made in the image of God; in Kantian terms, the human person is an end in herself.) All moral principles that cannot be reduced to this principle of reciprocity are not ethical at all, but are merely ways of enshrining oppression and injustice in the language of morality. Because such pseudo-moral rules do not spring from reciprocity and mutuality, they must rest on some principle that denies the inherent equality and absolute worth of every person.
For most people, this ethical principle is known and integrated into life through traditions, communities, and narratives — in a word, through religious systems. Of course, many religious systems add their own baggage to this basic universal (Christianity has certainly done so at times, and in large part continues to do so today). But religious traditions also tell stories of how this principle has been understood and applied and interpreted in a diversity of contexts and situations, and they give us guidance in figuring out just what it means for our lives. A key epistemological insight of postmodernity is that no knowledge is universal, that all epistemic experiences are conditioned by social location, by context, by communities and by personal narratives. Religion is one such context-space, one such way of making relevant the principles that are theoretically universal but can only truly be known in the particulars of day-to-day life.
Well, I’m back. Swine flu is mostly gone, and I’m finally feeling up for some posting. Sorry for the long delay.
While reading around on Wikipedia about creeds, I came across another creed more focused on ethics than metaphysics: the Social Creed of the United Methodist Church. According to the UMC website, it came into being in 1908 “to express Methodism’s outrage over the miserable lives of the millions of workers in factories, mines, mills, tenements and company towns”. The creed has been revised several times, but here it is in its current form:
We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin in misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends.
We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind.
We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.
We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youth, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of all persons.
We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.
We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.
We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.
A couple weeks ago I wrote about the “creed on health-care reform” published by Sojourners, which is similarly oriented around social/ethical concerns. However, in that post I expressed doubt about whether the “health-care creed” was genuinely a creed, or merely a political statement in creedal form. The Methodist document has no such ambiguity: it is both formally and functionally a creed, for it is actually used in UMC worship services (unlike the health-care creed, which has no liturgical function in any faith community, to my knowledge). In other words, the Social Creed is formative for the Methodist community in an important way.
Needless to say, this increases my growing interest in the United Methodist Church, especially as I have recently decided to permanently leave the Southern Baptist church I’ve been attending for the last couple years. In less than a month I head off to Yale; if anyone has any recommendations for good churches in the New Haven are (UMC or not), I’m all ears. More on that later.
A couple months ago I wrote and posted a “narrative creed” designed to foster a greater emphasis on ethics within the context of narrative faith. Last week I posted a “creed for community” written by guest author Joey Fuson. Today, I encountered an even more explicitly ethical (even political), and much more narrowly-focused, creed.
It’s called “A Christian Creed for Health-Care Reform”, produced by the Christian social justice magazine Sojourners. The online page containing the creed includes an invitation to sign it; apparently a copy is to be sent to Congress.
As one of God’s children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).
I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ’s ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God’s new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).
I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).
I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and “mourning and crying and pain will be no more” (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).
Amen.
My gut reaction is that the creed could be improved were the last paragraph (the one explicitly referencing “health-care reform”) removed, as it seems to overly particularlize the otherwise general tone of the statement. On the other hand, the last part does have the effect of emphasizing the creed’s contextual origin and nature, rather than making it into a “universally orthodox” statement of faith/ethics which it cannot hope to be (and which, I would argue, no creed can hope to be). So I suppose my feelings are mixed.
The statement as a whole, regardless, is an interesting one. It certainly contains a number of valid theological and ethical ideas that are relevant to the current health-care debates. However, the creed departs from the more or less standard conception of the purpose of a creed: rather than being intended as a formative statement for a particular community of faith, this “health-care creed” is explicitly designed to double as a “petition” and to be submitted to Congress as such!
Thus, this creed not only goes beyond the standard sort of content that historical creeds comprise, but also challenges traditional notions of what function creeds are supposed to serve and what sort of communities or organizations in which they are to be put to use. Arguably, it would be more appropriate to regard the present document not as a creed at all, properly speaking, but rather as a call to action that takes the form of a creed as a rhetorical strategy. Again, I have mixed feelings on the matter, though I would tend to regard it as a legitimate creed, albeit an unusual and perhaps boundary-pushing one.
I would be interested to know, first, whether other people regard this document as really being a creed, and second, whether or not other similar petitions-via-creed-rhetoric exist.
A quick thought: If the Resurrection is real, then “Jesus lives” is a political statement.
William Stringfellow once wrote this: “The essential and consistent task of Christians is to expose the transience of death’s power in the world.” Indeed, the power of death is far-reaching in the kingdoms of the world, for it is from death and the fear of death that the State ultimately derives its influence. Governments are founded on violence, which has as its ultimate manifestation death itself. To deny the power of death (as Jesus did!) is to challenge, in effect, the underlying principle of the State. Thus, to say that Jesus lives is to make a statement with drastic real-world political ramifications.
If death is the final expression of violence and destruction, resurrection surely is the final expression of non-violence and transformation. Thus, the basis of Christian ethics (nonviolence/transformation/overcoming-evil-with-good) is contained in the narrative of Jesus himself, rather than in any set of abstract philosophical-ethical propositions.
Related: Creeds and Ethics – Towards a Narrative Christology
