Christian Decision Making:

Commodity or Community?



A Resource for Ethical and Moral Decision Making For Congregations

Presented by the Ethics Task Force









Table of Contents



Session 1: The "three legged stool"

Summary: Using scripture, tradition and reason. Listening to the deep, quiet voice of God through discernment.

Introduction

In our culture, and in our churches, we have lost the vocation of Christian ethical and moral decision making. As Christian people, we need to reclaim this vocation. In order to facilitate ethical and moral decision making in the congregational setting, we offer you this study guide for individual and group use.

Too often we heed the pervasive voices of the marketplace: consumerism, commercialism and greed, making snap decisions regarding moral and ethical issues. We have too often turned our moral and ethical issues into commodities which are subject to the forces of the marketplace, making rapid choices as though we are picking up sale items at the mall.

To reclaim our vocation of Christian ethical and moral decision making, we need to listen to the deep, quiet voice of our God through discernment within our hearts and within our faith communities.

Moral and ethical questions abound. For example, the Diocese of Newark includes communities which are among the richest and poorest in the nation. How has our habit of "choice-making" rather than "discernment" increased the socio-economic gap between our communities? How has your community dealt with the issue of school vouchers? Should HIV testing be voluntary for pregnant women?

This study guide will attempt to help groups and individuals in a congregational setting start to grapple with moral and ethical questions, and will help articulate how individuals and groups arrive at their conclusions.

The Roots of Anglican Ethics

The roots of Anglican ethics begin in a belief that God's divine order is established in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Such a belief holds that Christian identity and action go beyond individual piety, or a private relationship with God. A full expression of a faith life means that all that affects human life ought to be viewed through the lens of the Great Commandment "to love God and love one another as I have loved you" (Matthew 22:37-40). We Episcopalians reaffirm this belief each time we renew our Baptismal Covenant, committing to 'seek Christ in all persons, loving [our] neighbors" as ourselves and aspiring to 'strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being"(BCP p. 305).

The distinctly Anglican perspective on Christian ethics was shaped, in large part, by theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600). Responding to challenges from both Roman Catholic and Puritan quarters, Hooker wrote Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity at the end of the sixteenth century. Coming in the later period of the Reformation, his work sought to articulate theological reasons for the Anglican way and point out ways that the Anglican way was consistent with the true intentions of the early Christian church.

On the other side of the spectrum, radical work by theologians such as John Calvin in Geneva had given rise to a Protestant perspective which restored the Bible as central to the Reformation churches, but went too far, in Hooker's opinion. He pointed out that there was a problem in taking the Bible as the only source for Christian belief. Hooker stressed that the Bible was fundamental for our images of God, the means by which we come to know the Good News of Jesus Christ, and from which we learn stories about God's engagement in human history. But he highlighted two reasons why the Bible was not meant to stand alone, as though on a pedestal, in a Christian faith community. First, the scriptures are to be interpreted through human reason, not because there is anything "wrong" with the Bible, but because human beings make sense out of their world by comparing new information and new experiences to that which they already know. Second, in our ever-changing world (even in the late sixteenth-century) there were issues and dilemmas which challenge the faithful Christian but are not dealt with in the scriptures. Reason is required in order to discern a faithful Christian response in a world which has changed since the scriptures were written.

Richard Hooker shaped the Anglican way by arguing that scripture, tradition and reason are all necessary for a faithful, lively and discerning faith community. This combination was dubbed "the three-legged stool" of Anglicanism. He sought continuity with the past while discerning answers for new situations which arose (and arise for us today). This trio works such that each leg balances and informs the other as we discern Christ's call for us throughout the centuries. In the discernment process, a faithful response should be supported by at least two of the three legs. An issue may not appear in scripture, but Hooker would ask us to look at tradition and reason to determine our response. An issue may not be a part of the tradition, so we are asked to look at what the scriptures say and weigh that through our human reason.

This "three-legged stool" has served Anglicans well. By including the balance with reason and tradition, Christians have come to understand that not all ethical or moral contexts in the Bible are prescriptive for Christian living. For example, chattel slavery (the ownership of one person by another person for the purpose of economic or expletive gain) does appear in the scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian. Further, in the recorded teachings of Jesus, such a context passes without comment. Jesus does not explicitly condemn the practice, nor condone it. However, in our nation's history (and for reasons not simply theological) we have discerned that ownership of one human being by another is not consistent with the great Commandment to "love one another". Further, discernment is necessary since many issues we face are not mentioned in the Bible. Questions of pollution, nuclear proliferation, just war, economic justice, sexism, racism and homophobia, to name a few, are not settled easily by using the scriptures as a codified guidebook. For Anglicans to continue to bring a lively and vital faith to the discernment process - to 'seek Christ in all persons" we seek to continue to use Mr. Hooker's method of scripture, tradition and reason.

Summary

-- Return to Table of Contents



Session 2: What is/are Ethics?

Summary: Grappling with the definition of morals and ethics with your group.

What is/are Ethics?

In beginning to discuss ethics in general and Christian ethics in particular, it is important to first be clear about some terminology.

In casual conversation, the words "morals" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably but, in fact, they have different meanings. The word "moral" is related to the words "mores," "morale" and "mood." These words all primarily have a descriptive connotation, describing the customs of a culture or region or the emotional state of an individual. The word "morals," however, has a primarily prescriptive connotation. "Morals" are beliefs, feelings, statements or opinions about certain kinds of questions.

Moral questions are, for example, questions about right and wrong or good and bad. For Christians, moral questions are, for example, questions having to do with God's approval or disapproval, with whether something is just or unjust, or whether something is consonant with or contrary to the will of God. Some questions are clear moral questions, such as whether one ought to pay one's income tax. Other questions are clearly not moral questions, such as whether one ought to get one's hair cut on Wednesday or Thursday.

If "morals" are beliefs, feelings, statements or opinions what are "ethics?" "Ethics" describes both the rules, principles or values to which a person or a group refers in settling moral questions. "Ethics" also refers to the study, argument, conversation, or other process in which a person or a group engages to work out the answers to moral questions. The word "ethics," then describes both the process of working through moral questions and the answers that emerge as a result of that process.

Where does the conversation about ethics begin? What are the criterion used to derive rules, principles or values? Moral values are derived from the conversation called "ethics." That conversation is itself generated by the meeting of questions and commitments. Those commitments are called "metaethics." "Meta" actually means "after" or above." The word "metaethics," was, like the word "morals" originally a descriptive term. To engage in metaethics was, originally, to label or analyze various ethical theories based on the core values that informed those theories. "Metaethics" has come to have a somewhat more prescriptive connotation, that is, it has come to describe the conversation or debate about which core values best generate ethics. It is important to have a sense of what "metaethics" is because, the distinction between Christian and secular ethics is often most pronounced at the metaethical level. In practical terms, this means that Christians and non-Christians can often find themselves, initially, in substantial agreement about a moral question and later find themselves in disagreement as they attempt to apply a moral principle more generally. The root of these disagreements is often in the core commitments that inform and map how we come to ethical conclusions.

Summary

-- Return to Table of Contents



Session 3: Understanding Metaethical theories

Summary: Understanding deontology and teleology.

The two most prominent types of metaethical theories are "deontology" and "teleology." Ontology means "the study of the nature of things." "Deontology," often associated with 18th century philosopher Immanual Kant, is the assertion that there are certain core principles which govern all of reality and which can be used to either answer all moral questions (act deontology) or to generate more rules which can then be applied to specific moral questions (rule deontology). Kant's core principles of "universalizability" can be expressed as the question, "Would it be good if everyone, everywhere, and in all circumstances acted in this way?" and "reversibility" which can be expressed as the question, "Would it be good if precisely what I am about to do to someone else were done to me?"

"Teleology" comes from the Greek word teleos which means "end" or "goal." Teleological theories are those in which an action (act teleology) or rule (rule teleology) is evaluated based upon the consequences produced by that act or by the application of that rule. Utilitarian ethics is one type of teleological metaethics and is closely associated with 19th century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians maintain that one can decide upon a course of action or create a rule based upon whether that action or the application of that rule results in the greatest good (or the greatest amount of happiness) for the greatest number of people.

Other metaethical theories are generally related to these two. "Relational ethics," in which a rule or act is evaluated based the degree to which it honors or promotes the relationships between persons and/or communities is a form of deontological theory. "Character ethics," which focuses on the moral development of individuals and communities, and "pragmatic ethics" which is based on utilizing information from the sciences and from human experience and experimenting with various outcomes, are forms of teleology.

These various metaethical theories are not necessarily exclusive and some ethical codes, e.g. the British and American justice systems, are derived from more than one metaethic. Conversation about ethical issues can break down, however, when those who engage in them fail to recognize and acknowledge the different metaethical theories which inform them. For example, in the debate about capital punishment, opponents frequently cite research which indicates that capital punishment has no significant deterrent effect, while proponents argue that justice demands this severest possible punishment for the most heinous crimes. The opponent is arguing based on utility and the supporter's argument is based on a deontological principle of justice. Those engaged in this debate must recognize and speak to each other's basic commitments or they will be doomed to continue talking past each other.

Summary

-- Return to Table of Contents



Session 4: Language

Summary: Understanding how language can be misused or misunderstood.

Language

Christians seeking to have faithful and helpful conversations about moral issues need to pay careful attention to the language used in these conversations. Sometimes, either through carelessness or through intentional manipulation, language can be misused and blur rather than clarify issues.

There are two sorts of language issues to which it is important to pay attention. The first is when language is used such that it attacks the person making a moral claim rather than addressing the claim itself. Pointing out, for example, that the person who has raised a moral objection to hunting animals is, him or herself, a meat eater might raise an issue about the moral integrity of the person making the argument, but it is irrelevant to the question about hunting per se. Words can simply be descriptive of a person or position but those same words can take on so much symbolic value that they can be used such that there use purports to settle an issue. Words such as "heretic" or "homosexual" are often used this way as are "fundamentalist" or "evangelical." Christians need be careful when encountering or using language which appeals to authority. Claims which are prefaced with "the Bible says" or "the Church's teaching has always been" or 'science shows us" need to be investigated further. Authority certainly is important for Christians. We assent, by choosing to identify ourselves as Christians and to live in community with our fellow Christians, to the authority of scripture, the church's tradition, the Christian community and our own individual and communal reason and experience, but appeals to those authorities ought to be ways of opening conversations rather than closing them.

There are all sorts of ways of assigning value, and these ways can become conflated with the moral evaluation of a belief or action. For example, in discussions about budgets, churches make practical decisions about the use of limited resources. The members of a church might wish to support particular programs such as a soup kitchen and a homeless shelter, but might have to choose between them because there is not enough money to support both. In this case, a practical evaluation of the church's resources necessitates making a moral evaluation of two programs in order to determine which is most worthy of support. In another scenario, a church member might object to spending church resources on outreach based on his or her belief that scarce resources are best used to maintain church buildings. This "we have to take care of ourselves" argument uses the language of practical, economic evaluation but is actually making a moral claim about who or what is most important.

Plurality

Conversations about ethics and morality eventually address the need to make decisions about specific issues or to develop rules or principles to more generally guide decision making. In making decisions or attempting to formulate principles, it is important to take into account the simple fact that different individuals may make decisions in very different ways and may attach value to very different outcomes. Much has been written, for example, about issues in business negotiation and communication when American and Japanese people interact Americans tend to place the highest moral priority on fairness while the Japanese tend to value relationships and dignity.

Culture is, perhaps, the primary factor in determining how individuals make moral decisions but gender, race, class and age are also factors which play an important role. Christians who discuss moral issues need realize that they are bound by commitments often not shared by their wider culture. Sometimes, this means that Christians articulate actions and principles for themselves, but are not capable of articulating a value system for others.

Summary

-- Return to Table of Contents



Session 5: Moral and Ethical Decision Making Styles

Summary: Using different styles with real-life moral or ethical questions.

Moral and Ethical Decision Making Styles

Presented here are a few moral dilemmas, with six options from which to choose. These are not the only options; what is most important here is for you to see whether you can recognize your style(s) of moral reasoning. There are strengths and weaknesses to each of these styles. The goal here is not to decide on the best style for everyone, but to become aware of the different ways people come to conclusions, so we can hear other people's reasoning better and perhaps become more able to respect (or at least learn from) them. A brief description of some schools of ethical theory and styles of decision making are at the end of this section.

1. Your 22 year-old goddaughter confides to you that she is pregnant. She says she can"t tell her parents. They have always strongly disapproved of her boyfriend, and have made it clear to you and to her that if she were to continue to see him, let alone get pregnant, she would be cut off from her family in all ways. Her boyfriend, the father of her baby, ended the relationship upon hearing of her pregnancy. She asks you to accompany her when she has an abortion. What would you do?

a. Try to convince her to tell her parents; let her know you will do you best to support her when she tells them and whatever comes next.

b. Tell her you will tell her parents if she doesn"t, because you feel that ultimately sharing that knowledge will expand the available options and enable most people to make the choices they need to make.

c. Talk with her about her options and desires; when you"re clear that abortion is the recourse she feels is best, you accompany her without telling her parents.

d. Try to convince her not to have an abortion because you believe strongly that abortion is wrong.

e. Refer her to a professional counselor whom you feel can help her sort out her options.

f. Tell her not to have the abortion because to Bible says that murder is wrong.

2. You go to an electronics store to buy a basic CD player. You choose one and pay for it. When you get home and open the box, you find a much more expensive model. What would you do?

a. Keep it because no one person will be penalized for the error.

b. Keep it because you want the company to experience the effects of their packaging error.

c. Return it because you"d feel like a thief if you kept it.

d. Return it because it's not fair to pay less money for such an expensive piece of equipment.

e. Keep it because you"re too busy to return it.

f. You return it because keeping it would be stealing and stealing is against the law.

3. You and your co-worker are required to attend a week-long training session away from your office that neither of you believe is essential to your work. Your co-worker misses most of the sessions. She confides to you that her husband hit her and she's too bruised to appear in public. She asks you to sign in and out for her and say she was present - she can"t afford to lose her job now. What would you do?

a. Cover for her because your friendship is more important that fulfilling requirements that don"t seem sensible to you.

b. Refuse to cover for her because you want her to realize that the abuse is getting worse and she needs to seek help before she is seriously injured.

c. Refuse to cover for her because you are unwilling to lie and forge her name; honesty is one of your core values.

d. Cover for her because you always do what you can to support battered women, including protecting their right to privacy.

e. Cover for her on the condition that she seek professional help to escape the abuse.

f. Refuse her request because your mother always insisted that you tell the truth no matter what.

a. answers are illustrations of relational, or responsibility ethics.

The relational style honors the quality of relationships between people above other considerations (although there are always different ways of understanding what will improve the quality of relationships). H. R. Niebuhr described responsibility ethics in most detail in The Responsible Self. Carol Gilligan popularized this approach in her book, In A Different Voice. Joseph Fletcher was an Anglican ethicist who asked the question, "What is the most loving thing to do on any situation?"

b. answers illustrate the teleological approach:

"Telos" is Greek for end, or goal. Ends can be moral or non-moral: Tom Breidenthal, ethics professor at General Theological Seminary, suggests that a moral telos is an end assumed to be given in the human condition rather that projected by the human will. Teleological style is the consequences of behavior rather than motives or intention. Utilitarian ethics (the greatest good for the greatest number, where good can be happiness or utility), described by J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham, is one example of this approach. Christian examples of the teleological approach are, "What actions further our understanding of God's plan for salvation?, and "How can we help fulfill God's goals for creation?"

c. answers illustrate character ethics, described by Stanley Hauerwas among others.

Character ethics focus on what kind of person one wants to become (or, for Christians, what kind of person and what kind of people God is inviting us to become). It is a subset of teleological ethics since people make decisions based on the goal of becoming a certain kind of person. It interprets moral decisions in the context of story: the story of each person's own life, their family story, tribal or national stories, the Christian story. One of the assumptions of Anglican moral theology is that Anglicans hear scripture during Sunday liturgies and do some sort of regular Bible reading/study on their own. Knowledge gained from the Bible of God's story of salvation then implicitly, if not explicitly informs the decisions they make. A historical example (not necessarily Anglican) is the way African-Americans heard the story of Exodus in slavery and then applied it to their own situations, including decisions about how to survive with integrity within slavery, how to understand their owners, and how to resist escape.

d. answers illustrate the deontological approach.

"Deontos" in Greek expresses obligation: What one should or ought to do; what obligations do we have to God or neighbor or self? Natural law theory is one example of this reasoning; God created the universe and everything in it, including humans, according to fundamental principles. Our main task is to find and honor these principles. Kant is a deontologist: his maxim "Act as if every action could become a universal rule," asks moral agents to consider what would happen if they generalized a particular decision to lie or to tell the truth, to keep a promise of break it, etc. One of the ongoing debates within this school is how to determine which principles(s) are primary: e.g., if you have to lie to save a life, which principle should govern; truth-telling or preserving life?

e. answers are pragmatic.

This is more a style of problem solving than a type of moral reasoning. These responses are meant to acknowledge that sometimes we either don"t see, or don"t want to see the ethical dimensions of a situation. Or, that sometimes there is no good answer, so we try to minimize the damage done by actually making one decision rather than another. The maxim might be, "do what works." Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics is very teleological, but much of his philosophy was very pragmatic. William Jame's philosophy offers another example of pragmatism, which is valuable because of its emphasis on experience and trial and error.

f. answers are arguments from some authority.

While this is a popular style of moral decision-making, it doesn"t reflect any one particular moral theory: ethicists would ask, "Which authority? Why is one chosen the authoritative one?" Answers to that question might ultimately be either deontological, teleological or relational. Anglican moral theology has typically resisted the temptation to establish an authoritative canon (such as the Roman Catholic magisterium), stressing the development of conscience over obedience to an external authority.

Summary

Session 6: Case Studies

Summary: What are your answers and what are the issues? -- Return to Table of Contents

HIV and Pregnancy

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the age group that suffers the most from HIV infection is the 25-44 yr. old age group. These ages correlate to a great extent with childbearing years. Currently, pregnant women are being routinely tested for TB, Hepatitis B, Syphilis, Chlamydia, and group B streptococcus. No explicit consent form need be signed for these tests, and in many instances, the tests are considered so routine, they are not even discussed with the patient; they are just performed during a routine visit. In contrast, HIV testing, must be initiated by the patient, be completely voluntary, with explicit permission given to the physician to perform the test.

The problem with voluntary testing, is that it misses the populations that most need to be reached. Studies have shown that the people least likely to have the virus are the most likely to say yes to a test, and the people most likely to have the virus, are the most likely to say no to testing. In one study, infection rates were 5.3 times as high among people who refused HIV testing as among people who consented to it (New Mexico Health and Environment Department, 1990).

HIV positive mothers pass the virus to their infants at a rate of 15-30%. This rate is reduced to 8%, if the mother is given the medication AZT. A new class of drugs called protease inhibitors is likely to cut the rate further, if the drugs are used early in pregnancy. The key is early usage. The American Medical Association now recommends that HIV testing be made mandatory for pregnant women.

Since 1988 the CDC has been "blind-testing" infants for HIV in 45 states using blood samples, collected at birth, from which all identifying tags had been removed. Testing for HIV in this way meant that the CDC knew how many infants carried their mother's HIV anti-bodies but not who they or their infected mothers were. Mothers, therefore, are being sent home without being informed that they, and in some cases their children are infected with a fatal virus. The CDC has no choice in the matter, being legally prevented from testing without informed consent.

HIV and Marriage

-- Return to Table of Contents



HIV and Marriage

Mary and John were married for over 10 years, when John had to have a mandatory blood test to receive new insurance coverage. Much to their shock and horror, John's HIV test came back positive. John had been faithful to his wife, so both surmised that John had contracted HIV prior to their marriage. Mary quickly went and got tested for HIV infection, and miraculously was not infected. The state of New Jersey currently requires no blood tests to obtain a marriage license.

Moral Reasoning Questions for Reflection

1. For each case, what would you do? Write down your first response, without self-censoring or justifying your answer.

2. What are the issues you see? List as many as you can think of, and prioritize the top 2 or 3.

3. What kind of resources are available (economic, emotional, support network, etc.) to those involved?

4. What is the role of social approval/disapproval for various actions?

5. Who has what kind of power in these situations?

6. What actions would help people know God, or Jesus better? Are there relevant Biblical stories? Biblical principles? Helpful resources from the tradition, or from congregations?

7. What are some implications of your responses regarding these situations?

8. After reflection, do you agree with your original response? What do you think you should do?

Some Relevant Issues For Discussion

Assumptions: What are the implicit and explicit assumptions?

Privacy: Who should know about whom? What are the consequences of the state knowing someone's HIV status?

Denial: People not wanting to be tested, to believe they are at risk, not understanding HIV transmission. Why is there resistance to HIV testing?

Relationships: Is the fetus a child? At what point? When do the interests of the fetus supersede the interests of the mother? How are people with HIV treated in the community? In the church?

Confidentiality: How about the interests of the state? With whom should what information be shared? Will the information really be used to help the mother and/or her fetus?

Resources: What about support services?

Power: Who has what kind of power in this situation?

-- Return to Table of Contents

School Vouchers

Joan and John live in Northern New Jersey. They have a son, Steven, who will be entering school in the fall. It is now January, and the couple are grappling with where to send Steven to school. The neighborhood school has a poor reputation, due to problems of discipline, teacher turnover, a failing infrastructure, and its location in a "rough" neighborhood. They can send Steven to the neighborhood school, or have the option, because of school vouchers, to seek a private or parochial school in their town. Or, another option would be to move to a town where the local schools enjoy a better reputation.

Joan and John are conflicted about what to do, for they feel if they leave the current school system, they would be abandoning their chance to make a difference at the school, taking their resources away from the local schools. On the other hand, maybe the voucher system would force a change on the local level, forcing the local school system to improve. As the situation stands now, they reasoned, there is little incentive for the school system to improve.

Another consideration was the multi-racial and multi-cultural diversity Steven would not enjoy at one of the private school. Diversity is important to Joan and John, but they are concerned about Steven's educational future, and his learning environment.

Some Relevant Issues For Discussion

Causes- What causes the varying quality of public schools in different towns?

Purposes and Goals- What are the purposes and goals of private schools?

Community- How do we contribute to the common good of the town?

Consequences- What are the consequences of moving or of staying?

Balancing- needs of family with needs of neighbors.

Resources- What kind of resources are available, and for whom?

Power- Who has the power in this situation?

Biblical Principles for Reflection

What does scripture have to say about:

Justice?

Error and forgiveness?

Repentance and transformation?

The body of Christ?

Pauline ethical lists (Ephesians 5:19-21)?

Grace?

Love?

The 10 Commandments?

Salvation?

Inclusion of all, especially the "least of these?"

Mercy?

Faith Questions for Discussion

What is the most loving thing to do?

What is the most just thing to do?

What will best create and sustain healthy relationships?

What decision will enable people to best honor their vocations?

What decisions will give people room to repent, change their behavior, ask and/or accept forgiveness?

What would Jesus do?

What would most help the well-being of all people involved in a situation, beginning with the most vulnerable?

-- Return to Table of Contents

For Further Study

The Anglican Vision, (Vol. One of The New Church's Teaching Series), James E. Griffis, Cowley Publications, 1997.

Empowerment Ethics for A Liberated People: A Path to African-American Social Transformation, Cheryl J. Sanders, Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1995.

Katie's Canon: Womanism and the Soul of the Black Community, Katie Geneva Cannon, Continuum, 1995.

Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology, Jung Young Lee, Fortress Press, 1995.

The Middle Way: Voices of Anglicanism, Lee W. Gibbs, ed., Foreward Movement Publications, 1991.

Social Teachings in the Episcopal Church: A Source Book, Robert E. Hood, Morehouse Publishing, 1990.

Where Resident Aliens Live: Exercises for Christian Practice, Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Abington Press, 1996.

-- Return to Table of Contents



Ethics Task Force Members
Ms. Carlotta Budd
The Rev. Susan Butler
The Rev. Jeanette DeFriest
Ms. Martha Gardener
Mr. Peter Gunness, Co-Chair
Dr. Eileen Hartsoe
The Rev. Scott Hoogerhyde
Ms. Edith Lauderdale
The Rev. Dr. Allison Moore
Mr. Mesrob Odian
Mr. Matthew Piermatti
The Rev. Stephanie Wethered, Co-Chair

-- Return to Table of Contents
-- Return to Diocese of Newark Home Page