Of Moral Compasses and Society

In the Garden of Eden, one of the choices which faced the first humans was a choice between what is good for the community and what is good for the individual. Adam and Eve faced a moral choice to either obey God’s community standards or obey the voice of selfishness personified in a snake. We know very little of the thought processes of Adam and Eve in that prehistoric garden, only the vignettes God reveals in the words of Genesis 2, 3, and 4, and we do well to learn what God seeks to teach us through their lives.

Genesis 1 begins with the Creator as a community of persons creating a marvelously interwoven interdependent biosphere.[1] The emphasis is on the blue planet, third from the sun in our solar system, but of course the entire universe is God’s creation and humans are asked to care for it all. The Creator, in his first instructions to humanity, gives them the task of caring for all that has been created.[2] There are a couple of clues that this is a community task and not the individual responsibility of one couple. First, we get an indication that the creation is so large that two would not be able to care for it all. Secondly, Adam and Eve receive the instructions to be fruitful and multiply so that there may be more people to join in the care of the garden, the planet, and all of creation. There is much more that could be said of the plan God has for the care of his creation, but most of it comes down to the fact that humans are created in the image of God and are designed to care for what he cares about. Thus, humans must care for God’s creation, which of course includes other human beings. The task God gives humans is daunting: take care of a whole planet and indeed a whole universe, but the Creator makes the planet (and the universe) remarkably self-sustaining and self-renewing.[3]

Then, going back to the Garden of Eden, we read of that first choice: to do what is good for the community of humans and for the creation, or to do what enhances personal knowledge and personal power. The temptation that is offered is devious and enticing for any human: trust that what God has said is right for his creation or take control and do things our own individual way. Listen in to the insidious temptation: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ … You will not certainly die, … when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Confusing words for any listener. “Wait, what did God say? What did the snake say?” Ultimately, a choice is made between following the instructions of the One who knows how the universe works (following the manual – so to speak) or choosing to do what enhances the individual.

Ever since that first inflection point of choice, we have seen humanity come to similar places of decision over and over again. When tribal families in geographic areas face a new group of families with similar or different lifestyles, they must decide whether they will fight against them for the resources of that place or collaborate together in an expanded community. When the great empires and kingdoms of the world rise up, the individual must choose between obeying the community/kingdom laws or choosing what is good for themselves/their small family. When democratic governments rise to the forefront and recognize the tensions and balances between the individual, the society, the family, and world cultures, the individual must again make choices between personal pursuits and the pursuits of the society at large. In current vernacular, the individual must ask, “Should I work to ensure there is enough hand-sanitizer to meet the needs of the community or stockpile the product and sell it for a profit?”

Keith Boag, an opinion columnist for CBC News, recently wrote an article which describes the tension in our world today: the right of the individual to pursue happiness and the obligations of those who live together in society. Boag’s examples are taken from recent incidents in the United States of America but are written as a caution to all people and particularly to Canadians. His words are more political than theological, but I would suggest that the roots of the tensions go back to the moral choices of the Garden of Eden.

Boag gets to the heart of the matter when he quotes Christopher Beem, director of the McCourtney School of Democracy in saying that “… Americans need to challenge the idea that everyone is just pursuing their own happiness as individuals…. When we live together in society, we depend on each other. And therefore, we have obligations to each other."[4] Truly, this is a very old tension: the good of the individual and the good of the society. The article gives several examples of the bad behaviours that can occur when individuals take advantage of the society in which they live and pursue their own happiness as individuals (read the entire article and be prepared to be angry). Of course, the article also exposes our own hearts and our own susceptibility to making the wrong choice in any given circumstance. Both of Boag and Beem challenge us to reconsider the importance of the society or societies within which we live. They are suggesting that the happiness of a society as well as the individual is something to be pursued.

From the very beginning, God knew that we would face the choices we are facing today. He knows how societies, cultures, and planets work best and has given us his guidance. He knows that we are susceptible to the temptation of individualism, tribalism, and selfishness and yet he allows us to choose our own paths forward. Like Adam and Eve, we get to choose where we will find our moral compass.

  

---

[1] Granted, one must look closely for hints that the Creator is a community of persons in Genesis and one needs the larger arc of the entire Bible to understand the nature of a Creator who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see for example John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20) but the seeds of this theology are definitely sown in the beginnings of our Bible and the beginnings of creation.

[2] Genesis 1:28 says, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue (or steward) it. Rule over (or take care of) the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

[3] There are many examples of how the biosystem works in harmony. A simple example is the earth’s water cycle as explained in the article entitled “Water Cycle” in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

[4] “Coronavirus puts a spotlight on the moral compass of America,” Keith Boag, CBC News, March 23, 2020, https://bit.ly/3drSMjs

Automation

Somewhere in a dark research lab in Oak Brook, Illinois, Ronald McDonald is working on further developments in retinal scans, finger-prints, and facial recognition. The latest technology in use at my local McDonald's is just one step away from using this technology.

Recently, I walked into a McDonald's in Calgary, Alberta and was confused about how I should order. There was still one person at a till at the counter, but there were six shiny, new, touch screens where I could place my order as well. I could sort through categories and touch pictures of my favourite burger, drink, and fries, place my order and pay for my meal. It was a surprisingly fast and efficient process. I was given an order number and the factory in the back of the restaurant (still an assembly line of people – for now) put together my order. When it was ready, my order number showed up on a screen above the counter and a smiling host handed me a tray carrying my meal.

I thought about how they could take this process to the next level. A number of mechanisms could be used to identify a person when they walked into the restaurant (thus, the research in Illinois); something as simple as giving each person a unique number and pin with which they could log in to a terminal could work. Then, the device could ask you if you wanted your usual order or something different (most of us are creatures of habit when it comes to fast-food) and streamline the process further. The terminal could be linked to your usual method of payment and instantly your order would be placed. Now that would be “fast-food!”

Of course we might ask some questions about this process. What about the number of employees at the counter? Where will they work if not at McDonald's? Perhaps they will work at the factories producing facial recognition cameras. What about the personal, human, element? How personal is the usual exchange at any till? “Hello, can I take your order? Big Mac, fries, and coke. That will be $X.YY. Thank you. Have a nice day.”

We have asked these types of questions since before Henry Ford started building cars on an assembly line. Those who lamented the loss of personal craftsmanship and the human touch have been labelled “Luddites” for about the same length of time. Yet, those questions are still worth asking. There may be a place for automated systems as well as a place for old-fashioned craftsmanship, customer service, and the personal touch. Perhaps we should think about the industries where each type of service is appropriate: restaurant chains, the health industry, manufacturing, book sales, … Might we slow down long enough to make some informed decisions rather than let technology take the driver’s seat? What kind of society do we truly desire? We need to ask these questions before they are answered for us. For now, I will go back to quietly eating my Big Mac, ignoring everyone around me while I check Facebook on my phone.

Personal Autonomy and Society

[Thirty one years ago] I could make objective observations about my kids without parents getting offended. But now we handle parents a lot more delicately. We handle children a lot more delicately. They feel good about themselves for no reason. We've given them this cotton candy sense of self with no basis in reality. We don't emphasize what's best for the greater good of society or even the classroom.1

Up until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, the good of society trumped the good of the individual in the western world. A few examples will help to demonstrate this. In the United States, from 1940 to 1975, individuals could be drafted into military duty. Prior to the 1960s, most medical decisions were made by professional physicians; and, as shown in the previous quote, teachers were given the benefit of the doubt that they knew what was best for our children.

Then western culture began to emphasize the concept of personal autonomy to a much greater degree. The U.S. revoked the conscription act, the patient was given much more say in medical decisions, abortion became a matter of rights related to a woman's choice, and parents and the child were consulted to a greater degree in matters of education. Today, in Canadian Parliament, we see a debate regarding doctor assisted suicide that hinges upon the rights of the individual and, to some extent, the values of society. At this point in history it is clear that personal autonomy has a much larger impact on such decisions than ever before.

Canada's Supreme Court last debated this issue in 1993 when Sue Rodriquez argued that the laws that prevented her from receiving assistance in her death violated her charter rights. At that time, the court decided that "certain rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are trumped by the principles of fundamental justice."2 At this time it is unclear whether the same argument will hold sway.

Is it perhaps time to say that the pendulum of public opinion in the Western World has swung too far toward personal autonomy and individual rights? Personal ". . . autonomy has been criticized as being a bad ideal, for promoting a pernicious model of human individuality that overlooks the importance of social relationships and dependency."3 Could it be that we have sacrificed too much of our community consciousness for the sake of personal flourishing? As early as 1969, Emmanuel Lévinas saw "The emphasis on autonomy . . . as part of our selfish and close-minded desire to strive toward our own fulfillment and self-gratification rather than being open to the disruptive call of the other’s needs."4 He challenged his readers to consider the value of heteronomy: the value of "subjection to the law of another."

How far will our culture go in establishing personal autonomy as the final trump card? Is it not time to consider whether there might be some limits upon the concept of personal fulfillment?


1 Source: an unnamed Tennessee elementary school teacher in Time magazine, 2/21/05
2 http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/10/doctor-assisted-suicide-sparks-debate-amongst-cbc-readers.html "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Sparks Debate Amongst CBC Readers," October 14, 2014.
3 http://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Autonomy."
4 http://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Autonomy."

Next Generation Leaders

I am reading a book by Gary L. Johnson, senior minister of Indian Creek Christian Church in Indianapolis, called LeaderShift: One Becomes Less While Another Becomes More. The book is primarily about succession planning for churches but the principles involved go beyond the specific perspective to broader principles of generational leadership.

It is well-known that one of the largest cohorts of infants born in North America was the group born between 1946 and 1964: the Baby-Boomer Generation. The oldest of that cohort turn 68 years old this year while the youngest turn 50. This generation has held most of the major leadership positions within our society and our churches for many years. But, the Boomer generation is slowing down; they travel more, spend less time at their jobs, spend more money, and produce less. They are a major factor in dwindling attendance at churches and other social institutions. Boomers now attend such events 1 to 3 times per month (average of 2) as compared with previous standards of 3.75 times per month.1 Many of them are on the verge of retiring and so it is essential that we have plans in place to see a succession of strong leadership.

Johnson has this to say about the need. He quotes Psalm 127:3-5 (NLT) before going on to comment on this passage.

Children are a gift from the LORD;
    they are a reward from him.
Children born to a young man
    are like arrows in a warrior’s hands.
How joyful is the man whose quiver is full of them!
    He will not be put to shame when he confronts his accusers at the city gates. 

The context of this passage is about war. . . . The warrior did not keep his arrows in his quiver only to admire them. To the contrary, he shot his arrows where he, the warrior, could not go. Our children - those of the next generation - are the arrows. We need next generation leaders to go where we cannot. We must equip, empower and release them to actually advance the kingdom of God in ways we have only hoped of doing, contending with our Enemy at the entry point of our lives. As for myself, I long for the next generation to rise up and be a formidable threat to the kingdom of darkness by leading the Church in bold and decisive ways. They can - and must - do more for the glory of God in making Jesus the Famous One than we ever dreamed possible. This is my heartfelt attitude towards younger leaders in our faith.2

Johnson's words are indeed important to the Boomer generation. We must challenge ourselves to "long for the next generation to rise up and be a formidable threat to the kingdom of darkness by leading the Church in bold and decisive ways." We must long for the next generation to rise up at every level of society as we pass the baton of leadership from one generation to the next. The younger generations need advocates and mentors who will support their leadership and then get out of the way to let them lead. "We need next generation leaders to go where we cannot." This is vital for a healthy church and a healthy society.


1 These stats are based on broad reading, personal experience, and some related stats (see http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/october/state-of-american-church.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html) but there is a need for someone to do a statistical study.
2 (Johnson 2013, 130, 131)


Work Cited:
Johnson, Gary L. LeaderShift. Indianapolis: Moeller Printing, 2013.