Occasionally we should re-think personal positions on issues
like the death penalty and abortion. Now and then we should ask ourselves
whether the foundation of our conclusions on such profound matters is still
strong enough to support our opinions.
Isaac Asimov likened our opinions to “windows on the world.”
He said that if we don’t scrub them occasionally, “the light can’t come in.”
As a young adult, I was in favor of the death penalty and
opposed to abortion. As a state legislator in my 20s, my view of the world was
through a political window. Whatever assumptions I had made in arriving at
those opinions half a century ago, crumbled as I adopted a theological window.
I gradually reconsidered, coming to believe government
should neither take someone’s life nor make a woman’s most personal decisions.
Among Christians I admire, many suggest those positions are
mutually exclusive. They argue one cannot oppose taking life in one manner and
not the other. They firmly believe life begins at conception. Some engage in
Biblical overreach to bootstrap certain verses to support their view, but it’s
not there.
In a 2014 essay in Christianity Today, David Neff says early
Christian thinkers never addressed the matter of state-sanctioned executions. That
is equally true for abortion. Nonetheless, both scripture and the processional
theology of Christian thinkers over centuries provide us with a rational
framework for moral reasoning on these issues.
When I taught a course on Christian ethics for a Disciples
of Christ clergy certification program, I used Russell Connor and Patrick T.
McCormick’s work titled “Character, Choices and Community: The Thee Faces of
Christian Ethics” as a textbook.
These theologians speak about the significance of individual
life experiences in moral reasoning. But, subjective experiences must be
leavened in a way that holds us accountable to something other than ourselves.
In response to that concern, they place what they call “moral experience” at the
center of the paradigm. Then they ask, “Whose moral experience counts when
deciding what is ethical?” Making the point that life is not played on a level
field, they arrive at the conclusion that it’s the experience of the oppressed
that matters most in our ethical choices.
Foundational to their case is that when the oppressed are
liberated, so too is the oppressor. “In order for the full humanization of both
the oppressed and the oppressors to move forward, ‘moral truth from the margins’
must be given a voice.”
The argument is persuasive. So, where does that take me as I
rethink my positions on the death penalty and abortion?
My life experiences include practicing law and serving as
the head of Wyoming’s child protection agency. In both capacities, I saw the
faces of the oppressed. Some were wrongfully convicted in a
fundamentally-flawed criminal justice system. Others were neglected and abused
children born to people who were either unwilling or unable to parent.
Regardless of any reform, the criminal justice system is incapable
of administering absolute justice in a way required to find it morally
acceptable to authorize the government to take a life.
As for abortion, while I share the belief of many fellow
Christians that life begins at conception, God created us with free-will and individualized
life experiences. The human dignity accompanying being created in the image of
God, requires that women be able to make the choice within the confines of
their own lives and their relationship with the Divine. Allowing the government
to make the choice denies women the responsibility of that critical relationship.
The fact that two people may follow the same framework and
reach conflicting decisions can be seen as both a flaw and the beauty of moral
reasoning. In truth, there is no way to know whether we start with a conclusion
or a process. But now and then, we should reconsider. It’s not only good for
our soul but demands that we admit the fragility of our opinions as we
recognize the value of those who have different ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment