The Cab Horse Charter: Making Moral Choices

William Booth’s Cab Horse Charter was both a vivid rebuke and challenge to the society of his time and unfortunately this remains equally valid today. Drawing a sharp comparison between the way working animals are treated and the plight of the poorest humans, Booth made two salient points:

1. When the horse is down, he is helped up, and
2. while he lives he has food, shelter and work.

These simple illustrations continue to function as important prompts to the nature of social work in The Salvation Army. However, I particularly want to focus here on the Cab Horse Charter as a framework for examining the moral nature of choices that people make.

Let’s begin with the subject of food. There are numerous ways in which the food that we choose to eat represents certain ethical choices. Is this chocolate or coffee a Fair Trade product? Are my eggs ‘free range’? Is the tuna ‘dolphin friendly’? Renowned philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer makes a compelling moral argument for vegetarianism. These are the kinds of choices that most of us have the opportunity to contemplate on a regular basis.

Many people in the West will cringe at the idea of eating dog or cat meat, but this is an important reminder that our choices are frequently shaped by culture and often by socio-economic conditions. I heard recently of some research that showed that in poorer suburbs, fresh fruit and vegetables were frequently more expensive than fast food. Another piece of research was claiming that inadequate nutrition in pregnancy and childhood so constricted the potential for human development that it further entrenched people in multi-generational poverty. Opportunities for education and greater financial capacity clearly open up a wider range of choices and therefore a greater moral responsibility.

It has also recently been established that we produce enough food globally to feed everyone. So why are nearly a billion of us suffering malnutrition and hunger? Because we haven’t yet learned to share. Those of us at the top pay the price through obesity, body image issues and ‘affluenza’ but the price is much higher for those at the bottom end of the scale. We can be quick to judge the moral consequences of the spread of AIDS in places like Africa, but we don’t often pause to wonder how poverty and hunger might constrain the kinds of choices available to people.

What about shelter? Have you faced the choice about whether to buy or rent your home? Have you had some choice about the suburb that you live in? We have acknowledged that for there to be more than 100,000 homeless people in Australia is a national obscenity, that no one should be homeless in a country as affluent as ours. However, this number pales by comparison to the millions that live in inadequate slums in the poorest countries of the world.

I’ve also heard it said that some people choose to be homeless. This is partly true. Some people may choose to live on the streets because the alternatives available to them are unthinkable. This also should cause us to pause and consider what kind of society we are living in when sleeping in a park is evaluated as the safer, better choice available to someone? Once more, when we really understand those factors that limit the options available to a person, their choices become clearer.

Finally, let’s think about work. I can count myself amongst those many privileged people who’ve chosen more than once to leave a job for something better paid, with superior benefits and working conditions. Yet I know many people who’ve never had the opportunity to make such a choice. I know people who’ve never had a job and probably never will.

I also know people who have raised their primary income through prostitution. How do we begin to consider the moral dimensions of such a choice? I think it’s fair to say that there are some people who would claim that even if there were other opportunities available to them, that they would choose to be involved in ‘sex work’. However I think it’s also fair to say that is not the vast majority of those who find themselves in this work. Rather it’s the result of being constrained to choose between a few bad options.

Having looked at these three dimensions of poverty and moral choice, I need to say that I don’t think that our moral responsibility is always negated by systemic powers beyond our control. I think that everyone, regardless of the range of choices available to us, is responsible for how we make those choices. But I do think that before judging others, we need to take the time to genuinely put ourselves in their shoes and understand better why they make the choices they do. And regardless of what we think of others’ choices, like the Cab Horse charter says ‘when a horse is down, he is helped up’. We don’t let people fall behind because we don’t like why they stumbled.

Spirit of Life

For those who are not regular viewers of Channel 31's 'Spirit of Life', you may have missed a couple of interviews that I did earlier this year. Here are the links:

Spirit of Life - Part 1
Spirit of Life - Part 2

And yes, I did let slip a couple of factual errors but it was all done in one take with no prior notice on the questions!

Resurrection and Hope

The road to despair is wide and runs downhill for many of those who find themselves on the doorstep of The Salvation Army. The ‘Our Homeless Children’ report included this short quote that is unfortunately indicative of the thoughts of too many people: “What do I most hope for? That I die pretty quick”.

One might rightly wonder why anyone would want to work against such dire circumstances on a daily basis? For me, the answer is that, despite so many contrary indications, not only is there real hope, but to be a bearer of hope is a deeply meaningful role. There is something almost counter-cultural about spreading hope today. In a review of the Oasis movie, Captain Paul Moulds was described as a ‘delusional optimist’ – the kind of description I would proudly share. Hope may be unexpected, but it is a crucial component of Salvation Army social ministries. Liberation theologian, Jon Sobrino, says this:

Those who have a radical hope for the victims of this word, who are not convinced that resignation is the last word…can include in their experience a hope analogous to that with which Jesus’ resurrection was first grasped and can direct their lives to taking the victims down from the cross. Furthermore, those who, in the midst of this history of crucifixion, celebrate what there is of fullness and have the freedom to give their own lives will, perhaps, not see history as nonsensical… but as the promise of a ‘more’ that touches us and draws us despite ourselves.

If, as the apostle Paul claimed, resurrection is the central affirmation of Christianity, then this deep symbol of hope should still be a vital, life-giving metaphor for us today. In a similar vein, Jewish people celebrate the story of the Exodus, the liberation of an entire people from slavery and the beginnings of new life, new opportunities in the Promised Land. Both are powerful stories of hope grounded in the historical memory of people of faith. Yet to leave them entrapped in history is to rob them of much their power to continue to inspire us today.

If our message is to transcend the barriers of the faith community, we may need to learn to find ways of talking about resurrection beyond the category of history – for this indeed has become a stumbling block to many of our current generations. In Alice in Wonderland, when Alice tells the Queen that one can’t believe impossible things she gets the reply: "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!" This has become the all-too-common picture of a Christian, someone who is able to twist their brain into a doctrine-conforming pretzel – and who can no longer speak sensibly to a post-modern world.

It is important, then, for us to remember that resurrection is firstly a theological proclamation. It says something about the nature of God. God is on the side of life! God cannot be defeated by death. When we experience suffering and death, this God is not absent but is actively sowing the seeds of new life.

The real challenge of resurrection is not about belief, but about experience. It challenges us to place deeds before creeds, to live resurrection before we can begin to preach resurrection. Here the message of Leonardo Boff resonates powerfully with the mission of The Salvation Army:

Wherever people seek good, justice, humanitarian love, solidarity, communion and understanding between people, wherever they dedicate themselves to overcoming their own egoism, making this world more human and fraternal and opening themselves to the normative Transcendent for their lives, there we can say, with all certainty, that the resurrected one is present, because the cause for which he lived, suffered, was tried and executed is being carried forward.

There is only one appropriate response to the reality of resurrection experience:to seek out and work towards creating resurrection experiences and opportunities for new life in the lives of others. The Salvation Army is continually finding ways to impart hope into people’s lives. Surely this is something we want to multiply, so that every corps, every social centre can function as a community of resurrection possibility.

May the source of our hope never fail. May we always impart hope with generosity. May we know the experience of resurrection, of new life, of new hope, in our own lives and in the lives of those whom we serve.

Pure Religion

I sometimes hear people exhorting our return to a version of Christianity less tainted by modern culture and influences, as if there were a moment when the undefiled faith was easily discernible as directly revealed by God. An understanding of history (or even a broad reading of the Bible) will quickly unravel the supposition that this might ever be possible. The history of both Christianity and Judaism repeatedly demonstrates how religions are influenced by and adapt to surrounding cultures - sometimes in acquiescence to those cultures, sometimes in rebellion against them.

There is no single moment in time, to which we might long to return, when Christianity has been perfect. The Christian faith is continuing to evolve, as it must, along with the times and places in which Christians exist. Christianity today varies significantly, not only from denomination to denomination, but from country to country. The questions that inevitably arise from this situation become 'is there a core that must not change?', 'what is that core?', 'how do we discern it?'. This is where disagreements often arise as people mistake doctrines that are only a couple of centuries old for ones that originated with Jesus. Any search for the authentic core of Christianity must take into account the history of the church across cultures, the quest for the historical Jesus and the development of Judaism.

In most cases, the result will be something simple like love God and love your neighbour.

Be Doers and Not Just Hearers

James 1:19-27
James tells us that we should be 'doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves'. This may be a great comfort for those who find sitting in church increasingly unbearable. Perhaps its also good fodder for those who want to take out the easy targets. Of course it's quite possible for someone to hear without listening, just as it is to choose not to integrate what we hear into our daily lives.

Such transitions do not happen automatically. There is often a time lag between when our ideas change and when our behaviour changes. We test our new knowledge against our experience to see if it fits. Frequently (and particularly under pressure or stress) we can find ourselves acting in ways that are not consistent with what we now know, because our behaviour is still based on assumptions which we have in our minds long since given up. Consider the subject of global warming for example. I believe that this is a reality that we all need to take seriously. But I'm also pretty sure that changing the light globes in my house is little more than a token. I've been painfully slow to transition my practice so that it matches my beliefs.

James is also pretty clear about the kinds of things we should be doing. 'Religion that is pure and undefiled' involves caring for people in distress, particularly those most vulnerable. What matters in one's lifestyle is 'right living', 'right action' (orthopraxy) in relation to the rest of the community - to live as an agent of God's compassion to the world. True holiness is not so much absence of bad things, as presence of compassion, especially for the most needy in society

Finally, 'keeping oneself unstained from the world' is not about avoiding engagement where we get our hands dirty. It is about refusing to surrender to the dominant values of society. For James, the world’s values represent greed and covetousness. Those who choose to follow Jesus will demonstrate radically different values - sacrifice, compassion, generosity, hospitality. But significantly, they will live this radical alternative in the world, not apart from it. Ironically, keeping ourselves 'unstained' will often mean getting our uniforms dirty.

Leaning towards life

I've had this idea floating around for a while and though its not yet fully developed, I thought I'd throw it out there for comment. I want to explore the idea that the universe as we experience it bends towards life.

Firstly, let me make some necessary qualifications. I write this fully aware of the second law of thermodynamics and the numerous statistical improbabilities which have been overcome to sustain life on this planet. I am also deeply aware that my personal experience is indelibly coloured by being a tertiary-educated white man in a comparatively wealthy nation.

However, I don't see that any of these hesitations necessarily disqualifies the validity of this basic idea. The Earth is a life-giving planet. It has created and continues to sustain uncounted multitudes of life. I realise that this is also balanced by the massive number of life forms that are no longer with us, but I still find it absolutely amazing. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that the source of this life is what we call God. This is the essence of much indigenous spirituality: an essential connection to the land, to all of creation, and to each other. Its also consistent with what we think we know about quantum physics - there are all sorts of interconnections between particles and relationships that are astounding.

If God is indeed the source of this life, then what does it mean for us to try and connect with God? Surely it means that we also must be on the side of life. It means that we must be part of the life-giving that happens in this world. It means that we need to be keenly aware of how we effect the balance of the environment and of human relationships. Where our actions result in the lives of others being diminished, we are working against life. Where we contribute to the expansion of life, love and justice, we enhance life and participate in God's ongoing creative activity.

We can't accept this view of life and allow people to starve in other countries. We have the resources to feed everyone on the planet, but we choose not to because our priorities are different. We can't accept this view of life and continue to destroy the environment we live in. Humans have repeatedly demonstrated that is possible to overcome this natural inclination towards life-giving in the interests of money, greed and power.

This idea is inherently both hopeful and a strong call towards justice. If indeed we experience the universe as bending towards life, then there is meaning in our existence as we seek to join in all that is life-giving and life-affirming. We can invest ourselves in redeeming suffering rather than avoiding or denying suffering.

Any thoughts?

Speaking Truth to Power

2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Just a couple of thoughts from this week's readings but both, I think, very important. The first is that the confrontation between Nathan and David clearly demonstrates the role of the prophet in Israel. Once more, to read this as only relating to personal morality would be to dismiss much of the significance of this story. The prophet is commissioned to speak truth to power. What David has done isn't just about overstepping an ethical boundary, furthermore it can't be understood simply within the framework of property regulations (which included women in ancient patriarchal societies), even the murder of Uriah doesn't fully round out the picture of David's transgression. David has systemically abused the power granted to him as king - the very same power that Nathan stands under as he rebukes David. When prophets speak out on behalf of the vulnerable and the oppressed they may well be putting their own lives in danger, however this is often what they are called to do. There is a vital lesson here about civic duty and the kind of justice that stands up repeatedly for those who cannot always stand up for themselves.

Secondly, we have an image of God here that I personally find untenable. The vengeful God who contrives to publically humiliate David by abusing his wives and children is not a God that I can worship with any integrity. It's not sufficient to chalk this up to the 'mystery' of God or dismiss it because it's a story from the Old Testament. I think sometimes the authors of the Bible reveal their humanity and frankly, they sometimes get it wrong. Let's be brave enough to admit that there are some passages in our Scriptures that are abhorrent and that paint a picture of God that is unworthy of our worship. We can learn something about ourselves here though: how tempting it is to justify our own feelings of jealousy, hatred, prejudice and parochialism and to project them onto the divine image.