The Church and Personal and Public Morality
Seminar on Methodologies (Orthodox and Protestant)
in Approaching Social and Ethical Issues,
World Council of Churches, Morges Switzerland 8-12 October 2003
Presentation by Prof. Dr. Christoph Stückelberger, Switzerland
1. Theme and personal background
The issue
of personal and public morality, including especially family ethics, is a hot
issue in the ecumenical dialogue. First, I will describe a protestant position
in Switzerland, then compare it with an orthodox position and show the
methodological common ground and differences. But let me start with a few
information on my personal background for the better understanding of this
short presentation.
The
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches (FSPC), a member of the WCC, which I
represent here, develops ethical positions mainly through it’s Institute for
Social Ethics. I participate in the discussion of these themes since twenty
years as member of the Commission for Social Ethics of the FSPC. Myself, I look
at the themes from the point of view of a theologian, as professor of Ethics at
the Theological Faculty of the University of Basel. My publications focus
mainly on economic ethics, environmental ethics, bio-ethics and peace ethics[1],
but family ethics is the theme of a seminar this semester a the university and
is of course very important for Christian ethics, also for me personally as
husband and father of four children. As member of two consultative commissions
of the Swiss Government (for International Relations and Bio-Ethics) and head
of the development organisation “Bread for all”, I’m constantly obliged to make
Christian ethics relevant for society and test it in the dialogue between
Church and Society. Since the WCC conference on “Faith, Science and the Future”
at MIT in 1979 I participate in WCC-related ecumenical debates on ethical issues.
2. Swiss Case Study: Consultation on
the Future of Switzerland
“Common
Future. Ecumenical Consultation on the Social and Economic Future of
Switzerland.”[2] This is the
title of a contribution of the Reformed and the Roman-Catholic Church in
Switzerland for the reorientation of Swiss society and politics at the
beginning of the new millennium. The study is the result of a broad
consultation between 1998 and 2000 among the public and specific target groups.
It deals with economy, labour, environment, migration, politics and in chapter
3 with “family: life in alliance”[3].
The chapter starts with the reaction of Swiss people describing their difficulties
in modern family life and the high expectations that the Churches should defend
more often the family interests in political and social life (para. 47-49). The
Churches then describe their own analysis of the situation of families (para.
50-57): not enough public recognition of the importance of families for society
and especially economic reasons for the difficulties of young people to build
sustainable families (job mobility, necessary flexibility in professional life,
speed of productivity, pressure for individual professional success). Families
exist in pluralistic forms.
Under the
title “our clue”, the document then comes to criteria for value judgement of
family life (para. 60-65):
·
The
families are seen as the most important form of community life.
·
“People who say yes to family life take – in
a Christian perspective – the chance, to experience God’s love through the
family members and to pass it on to other people.” (para 61)
·
The
family gives the chance of a “life in all its fullness” (John 10,10)
·
The
family gives the chance of free space for display and responsible lifefor the
balance between display and life in a community.
·
The
modern plurality of forms of family life is positive and an expression of
freedom. “In the Protestant Churches, marriage and wedding are very important.
Yet, the content and the quality of the human relation in marriage and family –
even in life forms of homosexual couples – is more important than the historic
forms. The forms have to serve people and not the opposite.” (para 53)
·
Families
contribute substantially to the humanisation of society.
Overall,
the study wants to motivate people to take family structures serious and to see
their advantages and not only their limitations. “To struggle for families is
an innovative, future-oriented task” says the study (para 65)
The chapter
on the family concludes with concrete recommendations and steps to be done
(para 65-74):
·
The
freedom of everybody to choose his or her own
form of life must be respected.
·
But
economy and politics have to create conditions in favour of families, such as
family-friendly tax systems, apartments, salaries (one salary per family should
be enough to maintain the family), reconciliation between gender equality and
family life (work in the house and as job outside for women and men), social
security system affordable for families,
·
social
nets in the neighbourhood and social support for divorced persons and broken
families.
The study
emphasises the public (economical and political) responsibility for the private
morality of human relations.
3. In Comparison with the “Basis of the
Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”
The
document “Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”[4]
is very substantial and helpful for ecumenical dialogue. It includes family
ethics in chapter X on “Personal, family and public morality”[5].
This chapter reflects mainly four issues related to family life: marriage
(X,1-3), family (X,4), women (X,5), chastity and vices (X,6) [6]:
Marriage: The Orthodox Church respects
common-law marriage (X,2), but underlines the importance of Orthodox marriage
which is in principle indissoluble (X,3). The document gives nevertheless 15
reasons where divorce is valid. A second marriage is accepted only for the
innocent spouse or after repentence of those in their own fault ((X,3).
Family: The family is seen as a “domestic
church” which plays a central role in forming personality (X,4).
Women: The document starts with the
theological basis that men and women are “equal bearers of the divine image and
human dignity” (X,1). On the other hand it accepts Paul’s view that the
marriage is like the union between Christ and the Church and “the husband is
the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church” (according to
Eph. 5,22-33). The woman’s role is mainly seen as wife and mother, but also as
a “participant in the cause of the human salvation” in church community, in
“liturgical life, mission, preaching, education and charity” (X,5).
Chastity and vices: The document underlines the importance of chastity as
the “basis of the inner unity of the human personality” (X,6) and condemns
pornography, fornication and free love as an exploitation for commercial,
political or ideological purposes (X,6).
This
Russian orthodox document and the Swiss protestant document are written in the
same period (2000 and 2001), but for different target groups. Nevertheless, a
comparison of the content and then of the methodology is fruitful:
Common
content: Both
documents emphasise the importance of families for forming personalities and
for contributing to society. Both see modern family under pressure from society
and modern developments (the Swiss document more than the Russian one). Both
recognize the secular legal framework of the state and the special role of
church marriage. The equality of the sexes is an important common basis between
orthodox and protestant ethics.
Different
content:
Fundamental values such as faithfulness and freedom are common, but weighted in a different way. Whereas the
protestant position encourages people to decide for a family life in freedom and
accepts different family forms, the orthodox position emphasises faithfulness
and describes marriage and family in a church framework. The orthodox position
sees – implicitly – the roots of the difficulties of modern families rather in
the individual morality whereas the protestant side underlines the influence of
the structural (political and economic) factors and the responsibility of the
state and the private sector to support families.
4. Protestant Ethical Methodologies
There is
not one protestant or reformed ethical methodology, but different methodologies.
The one in the case study “Common Future” of the Swiss Churches represents an
important and often used protestant methodology in ethics. What is the ethical
methodology in the case study? I mention five characteristics:
- Participatory: A consultation means a broad
participation of the population or specific target groups. Listen to the
needs of the people means theologically to listen to the cry of God in a
specific context and situation. Of course, protestant ethics knows that
“vox populi non est vox Dei”, the peoples voice is not automatically God’s
voice. “The majority does not make the truth.” (Reformer Huldrych
Zwingli).
- Contextual: People formulate their
problems and describe their situation which has to be taken seriously.
Why? God’s truth is not abstract but God’s word incarnates always in a
specific context. In a specific context God’s eternal word has a specific
expression. In protestant ethical methodology, incarnation, inculturation
and contextual ethics are linked. That’s the reason why in the case study
the description of today’s families and their needs is an important part
of the chapter. Contextual ethics does not mean situation ethics which
denies in its extreme form common values beyond a concrete situation.
- Biblical: of course, protestant ethics
has to be rooted in the biblical revelation, otherwise it can not be
called Christian ethics. The use of biblical references varies in the
different position papers. In our case study it’s – in my view - rather
weak.
- Value-oriented: On the basis of biblical and
theological reflection, Protestant methodology often develops norms and
values as criteria for value judgment. In the case study values such as
freedom, self-reliance, responsibility and solidarity.
- Ecumenical: The consultation was done
ecumenically. In the Swiss context where half of the population are
Protestants and the other half Catholics, a common voice is much more
relevant for society than a confessional voice. Protestant methodology
therefore tends to be quite often an ecumenical methodology.
Today’s
most often used Protestant ethical methodology can be summarised by mentioning
the methodology of seven steps of the ethical decision-making process (developed
by the German late professor of ethics Heinz-Eduard Tödt as I designed it[7]:
Most
important is the fourth step which is the ethical and theological “core
business”.
5. In comparison with Orthodox Ethical
Methologies
The
methodology in the Russian orthodox document can be described with the following
characteristics:
- Biblical: Biblical references play a
central role, especially from the New Testament in a christological
perspective.
- Value-oriented: Fundamental values build the
key criteria in this position as in the protestant one.
- Church-related: The historical positions of
the church and therefore the emphasis of the ethical continuity and the
church-centred arguments play a central role.
- Hierarchical: The binding character of the
orthodox position is rooted in its ecclesiology. “The Church is a
divine-human organism” and “the body of Christ” (I,2).
Common
methodology: The
fundamental premise of both documents is that God is creator and king of the
whole world and the Churches ethical contribution therefore wants to be relevant
to the whole (secular) society and not only to the Church. The biblical
references are a strong common ground even if it’s less explicit in the protestant
position.
Different
methodology: The
way to define the ethical problem is different. The protestant participatory
approach is mainly based on today’s experiences, the orthodox hierarchical
approach defines the problem more as tension between reality and dogmatic
positions. The sociological, economic and political analysis of the context
plays a much more important role in the protestant position than in the
orthodox. On the other hand, the continuity with positions of Church history,
especially the Church fathers, is much stronger in the orthodox methodology.
Ethical positions of the orthodox church hierarchy as a “top-down approach”
claims to have a stronger binding character than the protestant “bottom-up”
approach.
6. Some Conclusions
There is a
broad common ground for ecumenical ethics, based on the common biblical ground
and on Christ’s call for all Churches to be his body, his witness and to work
for his kingdom in society. The comparison of the two case studies show that
the different traditions can learn a lot from each other, respecting at the
same time the differences. I see two main challenges which should be further
deepened:
1. The
balance between common fundamental values and their contextualisation.
We can continue this reflection on the broad methodological experience in the
ecumenical movement during the last decades[8]
2. The
different theological images of God and understanding of trinity and it’s role
for ecumenical ethics. An example: The protestant theologian Emil Brunner in
his family ethics was nearer to some orthodox positions than some of today’s
protestant positions[9].
Why? His ethics is mainly based on the protological part of trinity. God as
creator created an eternal world order which includes marriage and family as an
eternal “institution”. A christological or pneumatological approach in ethics
makes a difference, in family ethics as in ecological ethics or bio-ethics. An
ecumenical consultation on “Trinity and Ethics“ therefore could be a fruitful
next step.