Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Ethics

  • The What-About Lifestyle

    The What-About Lifestyle

    Especially in political discussions we frequently here something like “but what about,” followed by a misdeed of the folks on the other side. In turn, we hear complaints about “what-about-ism,” which tends to annoy people on the other side, whichever other side that may be.

    This is not, as you might think, a preface to a political post. Rather, I have found myself asking just where this “what-about” approach comes from. And as I thought about it, I almost immediately realized that this is a lifestyle. Not a rare one either!

    Whether it’s in our personal lives, our work, or in our ministries, we have this tendency to look down the road, across the aisle, or over there somewhere, and we find someone or some organization that we can put in the “what-about” position.

    “My church is not doing well. But it’s doing better than that church down the road.”

    “My language is inappropriate sometimes, but not as often as _____’s.”

    “I’m occasionally rude, but there are others much more rude than I am.”

    “My church is really quite mission oriented. Well, more mission oriented than most churches in our area/denomination/conference.”

    We usually talk about judging and Matthew 7:1 as a command not to hurt other people. That’s not a bad lesson. We shouldn’t be judgmental. (I’m only a little judgmental, much less judgmental than several people I could name!) But there’s another point here. When we start living by judging other people, we start deteriorating ourselves.

    Paul said something about this:

    We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they do not show good sense.

    2 Corinthians 10:12 (NRSVue)

    Many feel that if we aren’t vigorously judgmental, people will feel that they can slack off. They’ll do worse. But because the only standards we can achieve are fallible human ones, this judgmental approach actually achieves the opposite effect. There are some who become discouraged on being judged and give up. But there are many who, expecting judgment, carefully blunt the standards to make themselves look good.

    One key way of blunting the standards is to point at someone else.

    The northern Kingdom of Israel demonstrated this. It’s interesting to read the judgments given of the kings. Kings are generally judged to the first king of the northern kingdom, Jeroboam I. Later kings are either more evil than he was or evil, but not as much. The general standard is that they kept on repeating the sins of Jeroboam I.

    What strikes me about this sequence is the final king, Hoshea.

    In the twelfth year of King Ahaz of Judah, Hoshea son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel; he reigned nine years. 2 He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not like the kings of Israel who were before him.

    2 Kings 17:1-2 (NRSVue)

    He did evil, but he wasn’t as bad as his predecessors. And Samaria fell and the northern tribes went into exile in his reign.

    Hoshea could have said, “What about Ahab? He got to complete his reign!”

    [L]ooking to Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith….

    Hebrews 12:2 (NRSVue)

    Put your eyes on the right standard. Better, let Him draw them.

    Some years ago I did a short presentation on this, which I titled “The Sin of Jeroboam.” Video here is kind of ancient, so bear with it!

  • The Swerve – Too Close to the Truth

    … like right there!

    (HT: Language Log)

  • Essence Restored on the Repeal of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell

    He thinks Christians should support the repeal, and explains his position very clearly.

  • David Ker – Gay Africa

    David Ker has taken on the world at ThinkChristian.net, or so it probably seems to him. The comments provide some additional links and some vigorous comment.

  • Of Strategies and Goals

    As if it isn’t bad enough that we Christians many times cannot agree on what is essential and thus get carried away with arguments about minor details, we also sometimes have a problem distinguishing talking about a strategy from the actual goals. So we sometimes condemn brothers or sisters for disagreeing with the goals, when actually they simply differ on strategy.

    Because I don’t knock on strangers’ doors in order to hand them gospel tracts, does this mean I don’t care about evangelism? To many people it means precisely that. If you don’t pursue their goals with their preferred strategy, you don’t actually believe in the goal.

    Polycarp of The Church of Jesus Christ blog experienced just that when he wrote in opposition to the Manhattan Declaration.

    Because he opposes a declaration that opposes abortion, he must therefore support abortion, right? Well, not so much. You’ll find, in fact, that there are many reasons one might opposed this particular declaration, other than disagreeing with its goals.

    For my part I pretty much dislike declarations and such documents, few of which have any real impact. They just become another opportunity to impose litmus tests.

    In the meantime, just remember that opposing a particular way of accomplishing a goal doesn’t mean that one thinks the goal undesirable.

    Personally, I think that we Christians should consider the gospel the primary solution to moral problems. In fact, I think that when we go straight at moral problems with another strategy it’s as though we chose to try to crush a boulder with one of our bare hands whilst holding a jackhammer in the other.

    The gospel is the jackhammer. And no, I don’t believe those who disagree with me are necessarily opposed to the gospel or to various moral goals.

  • Mistakes Leading to Death

    This article certainly raises some troubling issues, though I have yet to understand why one should equate ceasing to artificially sustain life with euthanasia or assisted suicide.

    What I wonder, however, is if the same people who are so concerned about erroneously identifying someone as in a vegetative state are similarly concerned about the possibility of human error leading up to the death penalty. This is one area where I think the Catholic church is more consistent–they would oppose all of the above.

    The idea of someone dying because of a mistake is troubling, yet we must admit that such deaths are likely to be frequent, no matter what we do.

  • My Country, Right or Wrong?

    Back in 2007 I wrote a post about patriotism in which I said:

    I’m going to annoy quite a few people with this post, but I have noticed for a number of years that Christians in America often conflate Christianity and American patriotism. …

    I didn’t post on July 4th this year, but I did continue to think about this just a bit. What allegiance do I owe my country?

    I think it is clear that a disciple of Jesus owes his or her allegiance first to the kingdom of heaven, and only second to any earthly power. The question automatically comes up as to whether I am a reliable citizen of my own country if that country does not have my first allegiance.

    Some might think this was an accusation to be used by the anti-religious against Christians. But I think that suggestion is perhaps a bit too hasty.

    Let’s take my father as an example. He was a Seventh-day Adventist and objected to bearing arms in war. As a Canadian during the 2nd World War, he was denied a request to be given a medical role. Since he still refused to bear arms, he was given alternative service, so to speak, planting trees for he war. Many people despised young men such as that, thinking them cowards.

    This is a case here the laws of the land, in this case Canada, conflicted with someone’s understanding of the laws of God, and he chose to obey God rather than men. As such, he was certainly a less reliable citizen of the country–from one point of view–than those who were willing to do whatever their country demanded of them.

    Many were in a similar situation in the United States. In the churches I attend, most people make the assumption that the patriotic–and Christian–thing to do is to serve your country in time of war. To them, it’s just right.

    I served in the U. S. Air Force for 10 years and was honorably discharged. (I became a U. S. Citizen when my parents were naturalized when I was 12 years old.) For many people this is an indication that I am truly a patriot. (Well, some of my Marine friends think that service in the USAF is a substitute for real military service, which can only be performed in the Marines!)

    Now let me note that I am proud of my service to my country. I’m no hero. I just served honorably and moved on. But I am also very proud of my father’s service to his country.

    No, I’m not talking about the service of planting trees, though that is what was required of him. I’m talking about his service of obedience to his conscience.

    I don’t know if patriotism is the right word. It gets used in so many ways. But often love of one’s country is defined in terms solely of obedience. I think the most valuable citizen is one who gives country the value of his or her mind and conscience.

    You see, I don’t think this should just be a Christian issue. The greatest danger to a country, I think, is a citizenry that accepts “my country, right or wrong” as their approach to decision making. That is the road to tyranny.

    I have a hard time imagining the ethical atheist giving first allegiance to country either. If you give first allegiance to your country you abdicate your responsibility to make ethical decisions. Face it, sometimes an ethical decision is going to disagree with what the country orders.

    Let me bring up a more recent example. Supposing you have legal authorization to torture, as some people thought they did under the previous administration. Your superiors order you to do so. The relevant folks support their decision as lawful. What is your duty to your country?

    I think there is no doubt as to what the ethical person should do, on the assumption that you are opposed to torture. You would have to refuse to participate, and I personally would fell obligated to take measures to try to prevent such a policy from continuing. (While I do not find any convincing arguments in favor of permitting the use of torture, that is not my point here.)

    A country that wants ethical citizens should endeavor to make room for such ethical decisions and actions.

    Let me illustrate this from another ethical issue. Quite a number of physicians would consider it immoral to perform abortions. (My father, true to his principles, also rejected abortion absolutely.) Many Catholic physicians have objections to providing birth control services. Some believe that the law should require all doctors to provide all services, in other words, it would be illegal for a physician to decline to provide a service he or she found morally reprehensible.

    I believe such a law would tend on the one hand to create immoral and unethical citizens, while on the other forcing those who are ethical out of those professions.

    The best thing for the country is to make such ethical decisions possible. The best thing for each individual is never to abdicate such decision making to others.

    My country–when right. Otherwise I owe my country my best judgment.

  • Abortion as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card

    Recently I had a conversation with someone who claimed that Republicans had much more integrity than Democrats. He was, of course, a Republican. I maintained, in turn, that all politicians were tempted, and that many would, inevitably, lose their integrity, irrespective of party.

    After we had exchanged names and scandals for a period of time, and despite the fact that I’m independent rather than Democrat I had to provide all the Republican ones, he said, “Well, Republicans automatically have more integrity because nobody who supports abortion can have any integrity at all.”

    So there!

    A politician may solicit sex from a stranger in a restroom (which, while really yucky doesn’t strike me as a major legal issue) but if he opposes abortion he automatically has more integrity than someone who supports abortion rights, but is faithful to his wife.

    A politician may frequent a prostitute, but if he’s right on abortion . . . He may steal money, but if he’s right on abortion . . .

    I don’t even mean that in all these cases these same folks would completely excuse the behavior. What I mean is that they would regard the person who support abortion rights as having less integrity.

    As I’ve read around the conservative blogs, I’ve heard this sort of theme over and over. Whatever else I may believe as a Christian, I can’t possible support someone who–cue the ominous, evil-overlord music–kills babies.

    It’s an accusation that elicits mixed emotions from me, because I do very intensely dislike abortion. It strikes me as many things, including irresponsible and calloused in most cases. On the other hand, I don’t quite manage to get to the point where any egg which is fertilized has a right to life. Nature doesn’t work that way and I feel no duty to try and force the issue.

    But setting aside the core of the endless debate, how do I deal with the idea that this one issue is such a test case that if one fails it, one is beyond the pale no matter what else one may believe?

    I use the same method I do on every other issue–I exclude it, and then check. Do people who support abortion rights tend to be more calloused to human life in other ways? Do they have less integrity in their business dealings? Are they likely to grab and knife and stab me to death at a greater rate than the rest of the population?

    Ideas and attitudes don’t always come in the packages in which we expect them to appear. People may combine things that I think are contradictory and manage to live quite a good life.

    I prefer a very different idea of integrity. Integrity is being true to what you truly believe to be right. Not what someone else believes, what you, yourself believe in your heart. What you continue to believe when the closet door is shut, and when you’re in front of 10,000 people. What you believe even when people are saying they won’t vote for you because of it.

    Abortion doesn’t provide such a flag. It’s a difficult issue. It’s emotional. But it’s not a good indicator of integrity. I won’t overlook a politician’s faults because he or she is pro-choice. I won’t do it because he or she is pro-life.

    No get-out-of-jail-free cards here.

  • On Being Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice

    While preparing this week’s Christian Carnival, which I hosted at my Participatory Bible Study Blog, I encounter a post on how Christians should make voting choices, What’s a Deal Breaker?, which is actually the end of a series.

    In general, this is an excellent article, in my view, because it discusses prioritizing one’s values and goals and thus making more intelligent choices between candidates. This would be a substantial improvement over the process of eliminating candidates based on a limited number of test issues, which sometimes results in an unnecessary and wasted third party choice.

    The “deal breaker” that the author, Chris Brooks, proposes, however, is abortion. Now I can easily understand how someone might make this a deal breaker issue. If one holds that all abortion is murder and should not be distinguished in any way from killing after birth, then one is probably painted into a corner simply by means of words. I would note that the logical conclusion of such a view, which few people make, is that the penalty should be the same for all involved. (Those who have drawn this conclusion have often made very tragic choices.)

    When I describe myself as “anti-abortion” I do not mean such a position. I don’t support the current exception-free Republican platform plank on the matter. I do, however, regard abortion as something we should sincerely hope to reduce to those specifically chosen exceptions.

    In calling this a deal breaker issue, Chris says:

    On abortion, I really didn’t want to argue whether abortion is wrong – both because people rarely change their minds in this debate and because I think most Christians already think it is wrong. Instead I focused on those Christians who believe abortion is wrong and yet support keeping it legal. I made the case that IF you think abortion is wrong, supporting its legalization makes you, in God’s eyes, guilty of “aiding and abetting” abortion. Supporting those who want to keep it legal is the same thing. [Note that the link here refers to his lengthier earlier discussion of this issue.]

    This is a position that I believe is logically flawed. I hear it expressed repeatedly. There is an unstated assumption in there, that “making something illegal” is always the best way to attempt to put a stop to it or reduce its incidence.

    Murder is illegal, and yet it happens every day. The sale and use of quite a number of drugs are illegal, yet we have one of the worst drug problems in the world here in this country where we are purportedly fighting a drug war. I could cite many examples, including the fact that speeding is also illegal, yet it happens more often than not on most roads here in my own county.

    The reason I cite murder and drugs, however, is that I would advocate different approaches to dealing with them. Willful taking of human life (outside the womb, and I do make such a distinction) should be illegal, and that is the key element in fighting that type of behavior, though I don’t think it is the only element.

    I personally would prefer at least some relaxation of laws on drugs, if not outright legalization, and an effort to reduce their use and the damage that they do by other means. It’s interesting that I often get similar responses to this call for legalization. I must want to get high without risking jail! But the fact is that I don’t use alcohol, much less illegal drugs, and I would have no intention of doing so were they legal. I am against them, but I believe that the best way to fight them is not through our current unproductive (or counterproductive) drug war.

    In the case of abortion, I believe that the fact that we are applying the law inside another person’s body is significant. The fact that the majority of people in this country do not see abortion in the same way as murder is also significant. Why? Am I arguing that people’s opinions changes moral imperatives? Not at all. But it does change what is the most effective approach to dealing with an issue.

    It’s not my purpose here to make a full case for abortion being legal, even though I deplore it in most cases. My purpose is simply to point out that people can and do differ on how to deal with a problem, even when they may agree on the desirable result.

    Crossposted to RedBlueChristian.com.

  • Edwards: Is Marital Fidelity Strictly Personal?

    I have posted before on the sex scandals involving Larry Craig and David Vitter. Now with the admission of infidelity by John Edwards, we have yet another sex scandal.

    One response, as is often the case with marital infidelity, is to claim that this is strictly a personal issue, one between him and his wife. And the spouse is certainly the primary person who is wronged. If John Edwards (or David Vitter or Larry Craig before him) were private individuals, their deeds would be a private matter to be settled privately. (One must note that unlike Edwards, so far as I know, both Craig and Vitter violated laws, while Edwards violated only his marriage vows.)

    But Edwards is a public person, who has sought public office multiple times. He does not claim that marriage vows are temporary or optional. In public he portrays a family man. I don’t think infidelity in that case is strictly personal. Whether or not one fulfills one’s vows is of paramount importance in judging integrity.

    I have certain standards for sexual morality. I claim to be moderate, am regularly called liberal, but my personal standards are rather old fashioned. I believe in marital faithfulness. I don’t believe in pre-marital sex. If I violate those standards it should (and doubtless would) have an impact on the way people regard me as a Christian teacher and leader in my church.

    But both in and outside of the church we seem to have accepted a curiously bipolar attitude toward sexual sins. On the one hand we are scandalized and yell and scream about them a great deal. On the other, we excuse them in practice. I can find few people in churches, for example, who will say they believe that premarital or extramarital sex is OK, but when it is practiced, the consequences are quite limited unless the person is a very public figure.

    It seems as thought we know it’s wrong, but we also know that we are weak, and think “there but for the grace of God go I.” This is similar to early problems in dealing with drunk driving. Police, judges, and juries so often knew that they were guilty of the same thing from time to time, and were aware that they might just as well have been the defendant, so they went easy on what was regarded as a human weakness. Mothers Against Drunk Driving waged quite a campaign to make driving under the influence a truly shameful deed before it was treated as seriously as it deserved. (You’ll still find some cases where good old boys let one another off on this one.)

    Marital infidelity, of course, doesn’t kill as many people as does driving under the influence. But when one gets married, one does make a commitment, and normally that commitment is for life. If you can make a commitment “until death do us part” and then casually violate it, it says something about your integrity. When you cover it up, it not only says something about your integrity, I believe it is morally corrosive. You become practiced at lying.

    I believe that a willingness to ignore one covenant, that of marriage, is a significant factor in deciding whether the person in question will be faithful to another covenant, for example, the oath of office. Will the person who swore to be faithful to his wife, and then strayed while covering it up regard the oath to “uphold and defend the constitution of the United States” any more seriously?

    In an atmosphere where lies and half-truths are so common, it may seem very odd to make a big deal out of this one particular issue. But I would suggest that if we drop out of the search for integrity simply because so many people have failed to provide it, we will continue to enable our politicians to become less and less honest with us.

    I do not believe marital fidelity is strictly personal when it is committed by a person seeking the trust of others. Violation of a lifetime vow is a very bad indicator of personal integrity.

    PS: I commend the mainstream media for waiting for confirmation on this one. I rarely find them commendable, but they did much better than average here.

    Crossposted to RedBlueChristian.com.