Traditional Morality

A Sermon by Donel McClellan
First Congregational United Church of Christ, Bellingham, Washington

Hot Topic #2
I propose . . . a Return to Traditional Morality
Genesis 25:19-34
Pentecost 8 - July 14, 2002

LET US PRAY

Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O God, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

The last thing I want to do is to begin a sermon with a rant about the decline of morality in the modern world. I am not at all sure that there has been such a decline. I don’t believe that there are more evil people in the world, but I do suspect that the power for evil and for good is more accessible than at any time in the past.

I do know that technology and economic growth have put an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of a few people. More and more often, this technology is being used to harm other human beings.

A belt of explosives, imperceptible under a lose shirt or blouse, now contains enough explosives to kill it’s wearer and many bystanders.

American built jet airliners are turned into mega-bombs to attack New York City and Washington D.C.

Anthrax is mailed through the U.S. Postal System where it victimizes postal workers and terrorizes a nation.

These are the acts of intelligent, committed, and deliberate individuals who choose to do evil. They are criminals and deserve to be apprehended and punished fo their crimes.

But, there are others with great power at their fingertips, people who do not intend to harm others, and who would generally consider themselves to be moral, and even highly religious, individuals. These are people in the corporate world who focus so narrowly on making a profit for their shareholders, that they ignore the harm done to their employees, the communities in which they operate, and the very environment which has nurtured the development of their industries.

And there are giant pharmaceutical companies who spend millions in developing designer drugs and reap billions by extracting high prices from people who cannot live with the drugs and cannot afford to buy them either.

How are we to account for our outstanding citizens, graduates of our best universities, employing deceit, blatant political power and deception to grab as much as they can for themselves without regard for the harm done to their fellow citizens?

I doubt that there is a profession in America that has not been besmirched by the public revelation of misdeeds by its trusted practitioners.

From the Reformed Christian position there is an explanation for all of this. The explanation is sin. Human sinfulness never surprised our theological ancestors. They knew it in their neighbors and they knew it in themselves. It was that tendency for the inward curvature, the advancement of self, the ignoring of the common good, that caused these pious folks to strive to defeat their tendency towards badness, and to cultivate habits of goodness. This effort is the source of traditional morality.

It was Peter Gomes who got me thinking about all this. Peter, who wrote the wonderful introduction to the Bible, The Good Book is Pusey Minister of the Memorial Church, and Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard College. His most recent book, The Good Life, addresses the problems of modern morality. Those problems are, not in the least, complicated by a polarization in the public conversation about goodness. On the one hand are the assertive voices of moral relativity from students of post-modernism. On the other hand are the strident and restrictive voices of fundamentalists of every kind, who proclaim God’s judgment upon all who ignore the rules they espouse.

And in this vast battleground of ethical argument, there is hardly one individual to whom we can point with pride as an exemplar of virtue and goodness.

Along with a clear sense of goodness, America has lost its sense of shame. Bad behavior has become just another facet of stardom in our media-mad nation.

Yesterday at Lake Paden Park I saw either Tim Eyman or his twin. It served to remind me of the political strategy of getting caught with your hand, or something else, in the cookie jar. Today, the culprit lies low for a few weeks and then bounces back into the public arena proclaiming his cause and blaming bad publicity on the enemies of his righteous purpose.

There was a time when doing something shameful like taking campaign contributions and then lying about it, was sufficient reason for the permanent loss of public confidence. “Shame is a universal human emotion,” says Stuart Schneiderman, author of Saving Face: America and the Politics of Shame. “It is a signal that you are losing touch with community by being shunned or pushed away.” ^{^[1]}

Well, we don’t shun anyone for long anymore. Tim Eyman is back. Will he be forgiven? Probably. And probably enough people will vote for his latest initiative to provide the sweet wine of victory to the morally compromised Eyman.

Bill Clinton suffered a bit for his moral lapses and his blatant lies about them. Probably AL Gore arguably suffered more negative consequences from his boss’ dalliance than Clinton himself, who is now back on the high-ticket lecture circuit. Some believe that Clinton is the brightest American president since Thomas Jefferson. If so it is simply proof that intellectual acumen doesn’t necessarily result in moral personal behavior.

Nor does religious achievement seem to insulate one from the pervasive nature of human sinfulness. The Rev. Jesse Jackson confessed to fathering a child in an extra-marital affair. He laid low for a politically appropriate amount of time and is now back into his crusading.

And what of the disgraced former officers of corporations? What of those whose greed sabotaged their own companies from the inside? Will they suffer personal or public shame? It seems doubtful. I haven’t heard any apologies yet. But then, an apology might suggest guilt, and guilt is not a acceptable quality in corporate America.

What we have here, is a dilemma for the young. For some, inexplicable reason, the present generation of high school and college students are challenging the values of the society in which they were reared. They are asking how they can do well and do good in life.

Peter Gomes, was asked to preach at the commencement for an exclusive girl's school in New York City. He remembers,

"Many of the brightest and the best of the girls went on to elite colleges, and soon thereafter would make their way into the expanding stratosphere of the establishment once reserved for their brothers. They were able, aggressive, and entitled young women on the threshold of conquering the world, and I rejoiced in their achievement, was happy to celebrate with them, and wished them well."

For that occasion, Gomes based his sermon on the sixth chapter of Matthew where Jesus asks, "Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Therefore, do not be anxious about your life." It seemed like an appropriate message for the audience, he remembers that all the graduates smiled upon him.

During the reception, however, one of the parents came up to Gomes with "fire in his eyes and ice in his voice." He told the preacher that, frankly, his sermon was full of nonsense. Peter said, "The message didn't originate with me; it came from Jesus." The parent looked at him and said, "It's still nonsense." As the man went on to explain,

"It was anxiety that got my daughter into this school, it was anxiety that kept her here, it was anxiety that got her into Yale, it will be anxiety that will keep her there, and it will be anxiety that will get her a good job. You are selling nonsense."^{^[2]}

Gomes continued, in his book, to have the last word. He notes that the father is not only wrong, but is heading for disaster. At some point his vision of the “good life” will run into bankruptcy and he will have nowhere to anchor his self-esteem. Gomes suggests that if Wordsworth were still taught as it was to our grandparents we could say:

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! ^{^[3]}

The “good life” as it is portrayed today is not good. It is touted as winning the lottery, gaining your fifteen minutes of fame, Jumping on a dot.com when it’s near the ground and jumping off before it crashes, catching the most attractive man or woman so that others will admire you for being with them, making enough money to retire early.

Peter Gomes, says,

"Our discontent with the good life is not with the failures of our enterprising system of goods and services, but with the unsatisfying nature of our system's success."

Rather than seeking the “good life” more and more people are simply on a journey to find the good. And here is where traditional modality may be an aid.

When I speak of a return to traditional morality, I do not mean that we back up to the social values of the 1950's. Traditional morality is not a set of rules by which we are to regiment our lives. Traditional morality is a set of values to which we aspire in our effort to become better human beings.

I would never suggest that you consider morality as a means to make the world better. It is simply a means to make yourself better. Traditional morality is a cluster of personal values which, taken together, constitute something called virtue.

Professor Sheldon Krimsky addressed the newly elected members of Phi Beta Kappa about the relationship of education and virtue. He suggested that highly educated people are probably not more moral than the average citizen, but perhaps they should be. If there is no link between educational achievement and moral stature of what value is education? Krimsky defines his terms:

Virtue means that you have to consider your contributions beyond yourself. It starts with respect for the dignity of other people and the appraisal of your action on others. It is also something you can cultivate over many years of honest work and integrity and lose in an instant. ^{^[4]}

Traditional morality takes virtue seriously and suggests that happiness comes as a by product of the pursuit of a life of goodness rather than the “good life.” And, traditional morality is based upon a relatively simple concept.

Mark Twain was once approached by a well known, notoriously ruthless businessman who told him "Before I die, I mean to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud at the top."

"I have a better idea," said Twain. "You could stay home in Boston and keep them." ^{^[5]}

Traditional morality: it is a simple as that, and as complex.

Amen.

NOTES: