Sacks goes on to contrast philosophical morality and biblical morality. To summarise, philosophical morality deals in moral absolutes, focusing upon what humanity has in common. This type of morality underlies human rights. It is abstract and even where it speaks of individuals it does so in terms of 'the individual' rather than by reference to real people.
Biblical morality is more complex because it adds to these universals a context bound morality dependent on history and memory. So for each family, tribe, nation or church there will be a complex web of mutual obligations. This makes the group distinctive.
This is not the same as situation ethics which is in fact a morality of universals, arguing that ethics depends upon the situation in which actions take place. For the group, their morality holds whatever the situation.
My interpretation of this is that local morality has a wider scope than we normally understand as morals. It is a web of behavioural norms in which a particular society operates. Religious congregations will develop their own norms which make them distinctive from other congregations. Those within the same tradition will have more in common but the local church will have its distinctive culture too.
This makes ecumenism difficult if it is seen as a movement towards unity. To negotiate unity is to some extent to demand a change in behaviour. Sometimes this might be a minor adjustment but the smallest changes can sometimes have major implications invisible to those who plan or agree them at national or international level.
For example, disposal of the elements following communion may seem to be a trivial matter. But for some Methodists what might seem to be reasonable restrictions on what they may do can have profound implications for their understanding of what communion is. It implies Jesus' presence in the elements themselves whereas some Methodists understand Jesus' presence to be in the fellowship who take part in communion. Without understanding this the resistance to quite trivial changes might seem inexplicable. This begins to help us understand why ecumenical reception is so difficult, as even within a tradition variation in beliefs might have profound implications.
To summarise in Sacks words:
There is no road to human solidarity that does not begin with moral particularity - by coming to know what it means to be a child, a parent, a neighbour, a friend. We learn to love humanity by loving specific human beings. There is no short-cut. (Page 58)
Does Sacks description of morality apply to Christianity? I think it does. Indeed a discipline of congregational studies has grown up around understanding the cultures of congregations. I think John Wesley also recognised this in his sermon 'The Catholic Spirit' - I'm sure I'll turn to both of these at some stage.
Comments