Table of Contents | 7. How do you decide what is right and what is wrong?
Heaven and hell just aren't prime motivators anymore. Things are different. Thus, one guideline for ethical decision-making, found in a book by Charles Sheldon called In His Steps, has returned to public discourse. The guideline is, "What would Jesus do? or WWJD?" If answering this question is what shapes morality then the ethical stance of the individual is simply blind obedience. That stance is hopelessly naive as well as careless with what a mature human being desires. Such a guideline ignores creativity in moral decision-making. A human being becomes little more than an automaton. This notion that we have only to ask, "Whaat would Jesus do?" and expect to find an answer in some biblical text that we can simply adopt as a rule that can become the practice of our daily life is undiscerning and naive. In a book entitled An Interpretation of Christian Ethics Reinhold Niebuhr observed, "The ethic of Jesus does not deal at all with the immediate moral problem of every human life....It has nothing to say about politics and economics....It does not establish a connection with the horizontal points of a political or social ethic or with the diagonals which a prudential individual ethic draws between the moral ideal and the facts of a given situation....The ethic of Jesus may offer valuable insights to and sources of criticism for a prudential social ethic which deal with present realities; but no such social ethic can be directly derived from a pure religious ethic." If this is rejected as inappropriate because it ignores the questions of maturing and choice, what guide can help us make crucial decisions? How do you decide? Historically, this aspect of life has been denoted by the term "ethics." Every generation has been concerned with how the process of decision-making works. There are two distinct approaches to this question of what one ought to do. There are those who say that the most importanat thing to be considered is the principle or rule or commandment that relates to the issue. This approach is concerned with the wisdom that has been distilled from history. Certain guidelines of behavior have emerged and these feel that the answer to any moral dilemma can be found by looking to the past and finding a precedent that prescribes what one ought to do under the given circumstances. The emphasis is on the continuity of life. The crucial factor in this way of deciding is external or outside of the immediate situation. When I find myself having to decide in a specific set of circumstances, the thing for me to do is to look back and find the rule out of the past that corresponds to this situation and apply it. It is a "yellow pages" approach to deciding. The appropriate prescription can be gleaned from the wisdom of the past. Another approach starts from a very different point of reference. The persons involved rather than the principles are the primary concern of this focus. When faced with a situation with several alternatives, the question of this perspective is about how the largest number of persons can be served. Instead of looking at the present in terms of the past this approach tends to look at the present in light of the future. What can I do here and now that will bring the greatest good to the most people? In this approach there is a deep suspicion of any kind of prescriptive law or principle. Each day and situation are new and call for new solutions. The wineskins of older times are seldom adequate for what is new and unique in the present. This perspective was popularized years ago by Joseph Fletcher's book entitled Situation Ethics. How do I choose which approach is best? The truth is that we need rules and precedents and guidelines if we are to live authentically. The value of "the good book" mustn't be ignored. But these things must not become masters who tyrannize the present. They must be a compass, not a map. Tradition can be illuminative. But there is light available that has not come from the past and it must not be dismissed. On the one hand, then, don't exalt principle at the expense of people. On the other hand, don't divorce concern for people from a concern for principle. I end as I began. The avenue of determining what Jesus would do is concerned only for the past. It's value ends when situations emerge that were foreign to the ancient world. Moreover, the question doesn't take into account the fact that God has made us free and autonomous creatures whose goal is maturity. Thus, keeping in mind guidelines that may emerge from what we know of Jesus and our unique status as creatures made in the divine image, we must ask, not "what would Jesus do?" but "what must I do given my situation, gifts and responsibilities?" Whatever else making a decision means, it isn't a compulsive imitation in this century of the precise steps of a man who walked first century roads. Rather, it is the spontaneous actualization of our lives after the dynamic and creative lead of Jesus. It isn't, "What would Jesus do?" Rather, it is to ask the question in the much more provocative and personal fashion, "What does the mind and faith and spirit and person of Jesus suggest God would have me do -- in my situation, given who I am, what I am and confronted with the decision that is now my decision?" Harry E. Moore pointed out to me in his evaluation of this issue that using the potential actions of Jesus for guidance offers us a significant possibility. He suggested, "If Jesus were in the situation I am facing and the dynamics of my situation required action, seeking the example of Jesus, the words of Jesus and the way Jesus behaved could be relevant as a guide for my response." What are your thoughts (BobSueSand@aol.com). |