Moral Vision and Moral Practice in the Public Square Imperative or Impediment—A Christian Perspective By Garnett Roper JP PhD
A
t the very outset, let us admit that any focus on morality nowadays raises questions of integrity and credibility. It is the case that often those who shout loudest about morality and moral causes have been found wanting on the frontlines when moral courage is required. The real vanguard of morality are not the traditional voices and the traditional centres. Often there seems to be two overarching considerations to which complete loyalty is given: power and profit these are the new gods, these are what capture and captivate the spirit. How to make a buck and how to gain and maintain power. These voices range from those who call profit blessing to those who swear there is no alternative to the market. What is the use of our high- sounding words used in the name of morality, if when push comes to shove, we lack the courage to make moral choices on the cutting edge issues? The credibility of the voices that speak loudest in the name of morality is waning because they have been guilty of cherry picking among so called moral issues. They have reduced moral struggles to certain pet issues like abortion and the rights of LGBTQ community. The culture war issues from the metropolis to the North are the only concerns for these who shout loudly in the name of morality. There is no consensus that these two issues and the way they are framed are essentially moral considerations. However, what is clear is the choice of these issues of abortion and homosexuality is governed largely by ideological considerations. Those who proclaim in the name of these issues are concerned about the threat of marginalisation of the power of the church. These issues are dog whistles to betray where one’s political 30
allegiance lies and often these issues are sponsored by connected commercial interests and the sources of donor funds for NGOs. Whether or not this is so, those with eyes for these issues have no eyes for the more vexed moral consideration of certain existential issues in our midst such as social exclusion and the debilitating social condition that are part of the antecedent causation of high crime and violence. At any rate, this morality that is a single-issue based morality is just not holistic and contextual enough. The credibility of the voices that shout in the name of morality is undermined because we have failed as centres of moral examples and moral conduct. The mistreatment of each other and the excuses we make for ourselves fly in the face of our moral proclamations. Some have argued that the focus on the malfeasance in the church has been disproportionate and has been borne out of the desire to discredit the church as a centre of moral authority. That however does not excuse or explain away our moral failings. The failure of many in leadership in their personal lives who fail to live up to the standards they set INSiGHT | April 2021
for others to attain and in some respects who fail to be decent and honourable as human beings are too glaring. Morality is a seamless garment. When we come calling in the name of morality our own actions and inaction are called into question, the finger points back to us. Let us determine that when we are calling for a moral vision and moral practice in the public sphere we are also at the same time, pledging ourselves to exemplify moral courage and moral consistency in the little things that we do in our own everyday life. The world is longing for moral examples from all of us. Morality is not just a big-ticket item; it is a day-to-day matter both for the public space and our private lives. First of all, I will frame the topic, Moral Vision and Moral Practice in the Public Square: Imperative or Impediment—A Christian Perspective as a thesis: ‘From the perspective of Jesus and the prophets a moral vision and moral practice in the public square are an imperative rather than an impediment”. I am building upon and reflecting on two Grace Kennedy Lectures given in 1989 and in 1992 by G Arthur Brown and Dr Burchell Taylor respectively. G Arthur Brown spoke about “Patterns of Development” in which he referred to what he considered the golden years between 1955 and 1970 and period of decline due largely to the oil price hike which succeeded those years. G Arthur Brown advised that Jamaica, in order to get ahead of the curve, should focus on the knowledge economy. The clear objective of development was to increase GDP and per capita income. Taylor’s lecture was about the place of morality in the public square. He argued that morality belonged to the nature of our humanity and he argued that it ought
