Though he was unwilling to comment on the Governor General’s (GG’s)Dilemma, current President of the Central Jamaica Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist, Pastor Dennis Bignall was unapologetic and unequivocal about the church’s stance on gambling.
"I will not be able to speak about him (Sir Patrick), I speak for myself and the church. we remain resolutely against gambling," Bignal said. However, he added that Sir Allen “is serving the nation, and the good book says as servants, you are called to obey who you serve," adding that Christians should not withdraw from public life since they are needed in this time of immorality.
Sir Allen’s apparent dilemma and Bignall’s comments bring into focus notions of absolute morality and attending implications for service in the context of a secular national agenda.
Bignall recognized the church’s absolute stance on gambling but also acknowledged Sir Allen’s responsibility as a servant of the nation and so found biblical wiggle room to exonerate the GG should he decide to sign. It is this apparent contradiction that causes many to question whether Christianity is relevant and liveable.
Perhaps our notions of absolute morality may do us more harm than good in the long run and may result in the church becoming obsolete. Noted American contemporary philosopher and professor who founded the theory of situational ethics, Joseph Fletcher presented what can be considered a straight forward and logical answer to “ethical problems and decisions in complex circumstances” (such as was experienced by the GG). Fletcher’s position challenged dominant moral traditions and perhaps made the Christian faith appear more pragmatic than perceived by wider society.
Fletcher’s situational method involves “agapeic calculus” or simply put, love (the pursuit of the highest good for neighbour). When applied to formation of public policy, Fletcher argues that the love ethic must form an alliance with utilitarianism’s strategy of doing good for the greatest number of people. It is perhaps the “agapeic calculus” that held the answers to the GG’s dilemma in the scenario described and may hold the answers for future dilemmas.
But does ‘situational ethics’ mean suspension of morality? While ‘situational ethics’ challenges moral traditions it recognizes the foundations of morality. St. Thomas, according to Gregory Stevens views man as,
“created in God’s image because ‘he is endowed with intelligence, free will and a power of actions which is proper to him…having a dominion over his own activity.’ Thus man is distinguished from all other beings in the world, and his uniqueness is seen as rooted in his peculiarly human activity, which is a moral activity by the very fact of being properly human.”
In other words man’s morality is based upon an intrinsic obligation. What the Thomistic theory seems to be insinuating is that for morality to be thrust on upon the moral subject; that is immoral in itself. What is being suggested is perhaps another theological reformation that causes us to interrogate existing moral traditions by asking Fundamental, questions of who determines right and wrong and if there is a moral code does it include some and exclude others? If the latter is the case, what justification is there for an establishment? Whenever one set of people has power to define another, then power is given to that primary group to make the other what they want it to become and that is not just immoral, it is worse than anarchy. For as Fletcher (1966) would argue ethics/morality should be based upon the idea of seeking the greater good of the PEOPLE. Consequently, in whichever situation, including the one the Governor General faced the question of “is the greater good of the PEOPLE being served” is one that needs to be answered before decisions are arrived at. His faith should have no privilege of the greater good. And, should that [his faith] colour his ability to discern this greater good, demitting office is the best option he has.
Fundamentalists may insist on an absolute morality that is extrinsic; based upon a set of laws that are given by a [supreme] law giver and stands for all time, and across cultures. The Christian faith, they would assert, has moral absolutes, which it must resolutely stand by (and dare I say, find necessary to impose even on the unwilling). Presumably, this bold assertion is based on the presuppositions that we read the bible from a purely prescriptive perspective and that the bible is culturally neutral or we (the collective) even believe the bible. Suppose we all agree that the bible has authority over our lives, how would we respond if we were to explain how this authority is recognized and its contents for us today? Whether or not we accept it, the moral [rigidly absolute] codes in certain epochs in scripture have shifted with passage of time/dispensations, geography, people groups and the revelation of new truth (knowledge). For example, the strict prohibition against males trimming the hair around their temples (Leviticus 19:27) or against those with sight defects who come to the altar of God (Leviticus 21:20) or being given the right to own slaves as long as they are obtained from neighbouring nations (Leviticus 25:44) would never be upheld as moral indictments and permit (appropriately) in these times when proper grooming determines whether we get the job; and so many of us needed “sight aids” and human rights organizations and governments legislating against human trafficking and slavery. Even though the evolution of moral codes in clear in scripture, religion seems to ignore these evolutions and continue to guard rigidly absolute codes and the expense of pushing non-subscribers to the margins of society (an act of immorality in itself - using their standards of-course) Kaiser (1987, 11) seems to suggest that there are aspects of these “absolute” plethora of laws that are not as normative as some may think; that some are culturally contextualized and the task of discerning either/both is quite arduous. Morality, therefore cannot be immutable and rigid when clearly [even] (religious) moral codes have gone through its own evolution. This takes us right back to the Thomistic position that morality is in the heart of the Imago Dei [individual as the image of God].
Am I saying there is no such thing as morality or that morality is not needed? Certainly not! I am convince that morality is a universal innate facility (written in the genetic make up of every human being) that does not need religion for neither recognition nor enforcement. Before religion, people instinctively right and wrong; it was about honouring community (humanity).
The challenge with holding on, with clenched fists, to [certain] religious dogma and attempting to serve within a secular national agenda, as in the case of the GG, is that obscures our vision of the greater good of the PEOPLE. It becomes easier to see one’s self and the interests of others who are like-minded at the expense of those who believe otherwise. Within our moral and ethical framework is there space for otherness and difference; and is there space for inclusion? Those are questions that need to be answered. This is at the heart of situation[al] ethics; seeking the highest good of the [people]. Did the Governor General consider the good of the majority as he looked at the issue before him or was the concern about preserving a moral tradition?
The church will be guilty of becoming narrow through its want for self-definition over others. Paul Tillich, in answering the question of whether church are too narrow, agreed that the church has become narrow and opined that narrowness develops when the church becomes defensive, fundamentalist, refusing to listen to historical inquiry, having non-copernican world-views and refusing to modify one’s world view as we go along. Tillich seems to suggest, like Fletcher, an unconventional, straight forward way of the church making an impact in post-modern times without coming into outright conflict with the secular national agenda. According to Tillich,
“The church must take the secular into itself and transform it, as the old church did when it took all the great values of both the classical Greek and the Hellensitic realm into itself, besides the basic Jewish Strain. This also occurred in the Middle Ages with the Germanic-Romanic tribes; the church took them in. And I do not see any other way of reinvigorating Christianity.”
Tillich’s suggestion of a coalition between the church and the secular finds resonance in Fletcher’s theory of a coalition of the love ethic (agapeic calculus) and utilitarianism in the formation of social/public policy. Without such symbiotic relationships the tensions between secular and sacred will persist; Christians will find it difficult to serve in public life; the Christian’s absolutism when confronted by the often secular national agenda, will present not just a complex situation for the Christian but a situation where the Christian faith may prove to be extraneous and unlivable in the real (meaning post-modern) world. As Tillich asserts narrowness (absolutism) through restrictions of certain philosophical freedoms by the council of Trent in the sixteenth century almost suffocated the Roman Church – a church, which like the Greek churches in their continual openness toward incalculable elements, previously, allowed the development of many schools, including Realists, Norminalists, Thomists and Augustinians. Pope John recognized that if such absolutism/narrowness was maintained, the Roman church would perhaps become completely irrelevant.
The implications for reflection and practise of situation[al] ethics in the region presents for us an opportunity or “paradigm” for engaging our society around a greater moral code – “agapeic calculus”. Fleshed out, it embodies Thomistic notions of morality that respects the Imago Dei in every human being enough to refuse to impose codes of conduct on him/her. If we cushion our world view with this understanding and depart from here, answering the complex question of the GG’s delimma, of abortion, of sexuality and gender, of euthanasia, of the use of ganja and many others may be less difficult to answer and may create less conflicts as we answer same.
 Gary Spaulding, “Casino Bill Stumps GG,” The Gleaner, May 2, 2010, accessed January 8, 2010, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100502/news/news2.html.
James F. Childress, introduction; Situation Ethics: The New Morality , by Joseph Fletcher (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966), 2
Gregory Stevens, “Moral Obligation in St. Thomas,” The Modern Schoolman Volume XL, Number 1 (1962): 2-3.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Michigan: Zondervan), 11.
Paul Tillich, Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue, Edited. D. MacKenzie Brown (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1965), 94
 Ibid, 95
Paul Tillich, Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue, Edited. D. MacKenzie Brown (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1965), 93