It might sound strange, even
unbelievable, that my former responsibilities as a philosophy professor
involved ongoing study. After all, isn't philosophy an unchanging field? After
one grasps the archaic speculations of notable dead white males, what could be
new? Surprisingly, many philosophical confusions were evolving during my
teaching years. In the 1960s and 70s virtually all human relationships and
behaviors were subjected to random experimentation. A generation challenged
almost all that we assumed to be good. We moved from an era of fate
(when almost everything important seemed to be unchangeable) to an era of
choice (when most everything significant seemed to be questioned,
discarded or recast). A smorgasbord of moral options emerged: some superficial,
others well informed. We were again asking, "What ought to be? How
should we behave?" In the asking, the philosophical field of applied
ethics was reborn.
At the same time the biological
sciences and medical technology were experiencing amazing strides. But, we were
no longer sure, for example, that we ought to do everything that can be done:
whether to keep a longterm comatose person alive with new technology or whether
with 90% accuracy to assist parents to choose the gender of their children.
Moral issues related to terminal illness and abortion became familiar media
topics. Along with these more public matters, schools of nursing and younger
physicians sought disciplined discussion about the ethical dimensions of new
methods of reproduction, human experimentation, genetic therapy and
engineering, fetal research, patients' rights, various models of a gentle death
(including assisted suicide), truth and confidentiality, the allocation of
scarce resources (including organs), and health care costs. Hospital ethics
committees emerged. A few years later many businesses began to raise
value-laden questions related to preferential hiring, employee-employer
loyalty, honesty in advertising, corporate social responsibility, and whether
their basic purpose is limited to maximum profit-making. Other moral issues
added to the tidal wave of a growing ethical awareness and perplexity.
Virtually none of these topics
had been included in my preparation for teaching or ordination. I had to decide
whether to become a philosophical dinosaur in my mid-40s or to study at least
some of the concerns. For over a decade I chose to explore particular dilemmas
in human relationships, medical ethics, and business ethics. A sabbatical at a
university medical school, research fellowships, daylong and weeklong seminars,
and summer study crowded my calendar. I always sought clarification of issues
and diverse practical options that I could take to my medical and business
ethics classrooms or the hospital ethics committee. Several humanistic
principles were widely adopted among ethicists, because they seem to offer
pragmatic guidance, a context, for discussion of specific subjects. Respect for
persons, autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, honesty, informed
consent, and in many instances, confidentiality were principles justified in
part because their opposites are repugnant. In all instances, the meanings of
the principles had to be interpreted and applied, and sharp differences
frequently remained.
If I had ever attended a
seminar with my usual expectations and discovered the leader offering today's
Gospel, I would have walked out and asked for a tuition refund! From
Matthew we have heard a sampling of the so-called "hard sayings" of
Jesus - on murder, adultery, and vow-making. As laws (such as, "If your right
eye causes you to sin, tear it out..."), they would fail the test of
reasonableness. As precepts for daily personal living, they are neither
persuasive nor attainable. As criteria for business, professional, or political
policy-making, the Lord's hard sayings heard today, and others, are unhelpful.
Risking irreverence, we might dare to think to ourselves, "How appropriate for
divinity, how utterly useless to me."
However, to perceive the hard
sayings as rules, practical moral guidance, or principles for policy-making is
to miss the point. Jesus' profound contributions are elsewhere. For example,
everything he teaches in the realm of morality is designed to integrate outward
behavior with inner disposition. From him we learn that it is not sufficient
just to conform outwardly to virtuous commands. Just "going through the
motions," merely "going by the book," is lacking. Instead, good actions must be
bound up with appropriate motives, intentions, and affections that claim
individuals in all their relationships. In this sense, Jesus' teachings are
"radical;" they get to the root of the matter: a real orientation of the whole
person toward God and the resulting harmony of heart, mind, and will. By
implication, they invoke the necessity of God's grace for any of us to walk his
demanding path.
Our Lord's various "hard
sayings" have an additional function. They are designed to illustrate what life
would be like for an individual totally dedicated to God. As sayings
that interpret the perfected life in covenant with God, they portray Jesus' own
life: a life without so much as an inclination toward malevolence, betrayal,
deception, or other flawed sentiments. In addition, the "hard sayings"
symbolize the fully established Kingdom of God, the Kingdom consisting of truly
faithful persons living in a transfigured community of mature love! As such,
they expose our foolish ways and are beacons for our journey, drawing us ever
closer to God's Word.
Jesus is not a philosopher
designing an ethical system applicable to everyone everywhere under all
prevailing societal conditions. In today's excerpt from the Sermon on the
Mount, he is not offering a seminar on applied ethics. In fact, neither he nor
the Bible directly address most of the unique problems arising from societal
and scientific developments of the current age. However, later in
Matthew (22:37-40) he provides us with a context for discerning moral
options, his (neither soft nor easy) "Summary of the Law" - the "commandments"
referred to in today's Collect: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and
great Commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself." By Jesus' own words "On these two commandments hang all the Law
and the Prophets" the Summary is the only absolute commandment upon which all
else depends during our journey toward the fullness and perfection of the
Kingdom. His biddings, whether the "hard sayings" or other moral counsel, flow
from the Summary to particular circumstances. From him we learn that each of us
is under an obligation to promote the interests of the others with whom we come
in contact, whether at home or at work. Mutual love, unselfishness, humility,
equal regard, and generosity of spirit, all accompanied by God's Grace, are
emphasized in all human associations. One might say that the Christian life is
the loving concern for the wellbeing of persons under the inspiration of and
devotion to Jesus and the ideals he personifies.
My fellow parishioners, the
ethical dimension of life is not an exact science. Furthermore, we cannot
access God's Mind for divine solutions through the Internet. Rather, morality
is an art. In his demanding Summary of the Law Christ has provided us with the
colors, the brush, and the canvas. In doing the right thing, painting the right
picture, we may have more options than we imagine. For us, the humanistic
principles utilized in many secular discussions are expressions of the Summary,
whether or not they are recognized as such. However, as we engage in moral
explorations and propose workable solutions, we should not become overconfident
that we have ever reached the last word. I suspect that in all matters
Jesus would offer harder sayings that would jolt us, humble us, guide us, and
grace us to keep the pilgrimage advancing, during this, our journey toward the
Kingdom of God.