On Fridays we often post material from our readers, and this is the last on my recent submissions. So, if you have something you think would fit on this blog, send it in ... This one is from Matt Edwards.From Matt Edwards: During his Sex God tour, Rob Bell reportedly said that people have no moral authority to speak on the issue of homosexuality unless they have homosexual friends and understand their struggle.
How significant is personal knowledge for making moral decisions? Does Bell's rule work for other ethical issues?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer had similar ideas. He criticized people for being enslaved to hypothetical ethical "duties," while ignoring the real plights of their real neighbors.
In Ethics, he wrote:
[Christ] was not, like a philosopher, interested in the 'universally valid,' but rather in that which is of help to the real and concrete human being. What worried Him was not, like Kant, whether 'the maxim of an action can become a principle of general legislation,' but whether my action is at this moment helping my neighbor to become a man before God. He continued: What can and must be said is not what is good once for all, but the way in which Christ takes form among us here and now. The attempt to define that which is good once for all has, in the nature of the case, always ended up in failure.
Both Bell and Bonhoeffer note the significance of real implications for real people in ethical dialogue.
You could argue that Christ showed the same concern. He healed people on the Sabbath, showing disregard for ethical norms in favor of helping his neighbor. He violated the purity in laws in eating with tax collectors and "sinners." Even the parable of the Good Samaritan could be interpreted as advocating Bonhoeffer's ethic. While the lawyer asked a question about hypothetical duties, Christ responded with a story involving real people with real needs.
We can't forget that ethical discussions always involve real people. There is no such thing as a hypothetical discussion. Often, when we speak in the hypothetical, we do more harm than good. On the other hand, if we limit ourselves to ethical discussions stemming directly out of our own experience, we muzzle ourselves in public ethical dialogue.
Can we say, "No one has the moral authority to speak against human trafficking unless they have a friend whose livelihood depends upon the industry"? What about, "No one has the right to condemn usury unless they know a loan shark"? There seems to be some truth to the warnings of Rob Bell and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We need to be careful about hypothetical ethical pronouncements. And yet, the alternative to making such pronouncements doesn't seem workable either. What do we do?
You could argue that Christ showed the same concern. He healed people on the Sabbath, showing disregard for ethical norms in favor of helping his neighbor. He violated the purity in laws in eating with tax collectors and "sinners." Even the parable of the Good Samaritan could be interpreted as advocating Bonhoeffer's ethic. While the lawyer asked a question about hypothetical duties, Christ responded with a story involving real people with real needs.
We can't forget that ethical discussions always involve real people. There is no such thing as a hypothetical discussion. Often, when we speak in the hypothetical, we do more harm than good. On the other hand, if we limit ourselves to ethical discussions stemming directly out of our own experience, we muzzle ourselves in public ethical dialogue.
Can we say, "No one has the moral authority to speak against human trafficking unless they have a friend whose livelihood depends upon the industry"? What about, "No one has the right to condemn usury unless they know a loan shark"? There seems to be some truth to the warnings of Rob Bell and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We need to be careful about hypothetical ethical pronouncements. And yet, the alternative to making such pronouncements doesn't seem workable either. What do we do?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Michael (#17 and #18),
Once again I thank you for your thoughtful push-back. You urge me to think and write better.
If Rob's statement is used to shut down dissenters in this highly charged conversation regarding
homosexuals and Christianity and/or the church, then I believe his statement is being misused.
Let me make a distinction. We can judge the morality of a persons actions based on Scripture, whether or not we have any personal experience in the matter, as long as it's something clearly defined in Scripture. The issue of personal experience is necessary only in the application. If someone has a long term addiction to a particular sin, that person can come to an understanding that it's wrong, and choose to repent of it, but the understanding and the repentance don't instantly remove the years of that persons life that lead to his or her present day issues. It's necessary in leading someone through inner healing to know that person well, and to have an understanding of the things that lead that person to where he or she is now. We can't use personal experience as a way of determining right and wrong, but it's necessary in the application.
I think that if Rob Bell had gone into further detail, it would have become apparent that either he believes that personal experience has a higher authority than Scripture in determining morality, or that we need to be more sensitive in the way we apply our understanding of morality to real people. I assume he was trying to say the latter, not the former.
"Two persons who commit themselves to a homosexual relationship have made a personal decision. Nobody in their right mind willig commits themselves to sexual enslavement."
You say that as though all any homosexual man or woman wanted to do was "settle down" with "Mr./Ms. Right." But that is not the case in our cultural context. Heterosexual or homosexual, the reality is that this is a culture that celebrates the "hook up" and the "friends with benefits." Perhaps many or most, whether hetero- or homosexual, still are ACTIVELY pursuing "settling down," but there is a sizable group who are willing to settle for meaningless sex until they find "the love of a lifetime." And that doesn't sound as much like "decision" as "addiction" to me.
Hmmmm. How 'bout "No one can call sin a sin unless they have sinned or known Adam or have a smattering of his DNA." ??
Are we really at the point where everyone lets the guy with his fly open walk around all day never to say anything to him?
God as a PC Creator?
Maybe if I stop reading Scripture I'll start feeling better about all this. . .
I believe that we should always be ready to speak truth into lives and situations as is proper, even when we have not walked in the shoes so to speak. However, we should always speak that truth with humility.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.