The World Congress of Families is setting up camp in Utah, marriage equality is the law of the land, the Church’s new essays on Mother in Heaven and the priesthood are still hot off the presses, and the 2016 presidential race is officially under way. This means that it’s politics season on Facebook (is it ever not politics season on Facebook?).
One of the staples of politics season is the ever-present trend of politically conservative members accusing politically liberal ones of being immoral. Whether it’s a Bishop, a relative at dinner, a Stake President over the pulpit, or a BYU professor at a conference, it’s easy to suggest that liberals have no morals.
Because of this trend in Mormon culture, I was struck when I saw the former US Secretary of Labor discuss morality in a short video:
Reich argues that there are two broad types of morality: public and private. Private morality is focused on what individuals do—in their bedrooms, with their money, with their time, etc. Public morality is focused on what society does—our rewards and punishments, our levels of fairness, and our care for the weakest among us. Back to Brother Reich:
There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump.
People motivated by private morality are primarily interested in personal responsibility, private actions, and individual initiative. People motivated by public morality are interested in systemic reform, fundamental equality, and inspired justice.
This lens has changed the way I think about “values voters” and morality, particularly when it comes to the Church’s interactions in the public sphere. The Church takes stances on both ends of the morality spectrum–here are a few examples:
Public morality: ERA, abortion, marriage equality, religious freedom, immigration.
The Church tends to align with other conservative groups on most of those issues, arguing that we should pass legislation to limit marriage equality, for example, while relying on people to be better people to solve environmental problems.
But, there is more than one way to be moral, as Robert Reich and many others have long argued. The World Parliament of Religions, which just wrapped up in Salt Lake City, was a who’s who of religious leaders focused on social justice and public morality from various traditions. Some of my Christian heroes, in fact, boldly advocate for public morality: William Sloane Coffin, William Barber, Desmond Tutu, Simone Campbell, Robin Meyers, Elizabeth Bruenig, Jim Wallis, and Rachel Held Evans.
As we are enjoying politics season on Facebook and elsewhere, let’s remember that we need a healthy debate about what’s moral and what’s not moral in our society. Our liberal friends are just as moral as our conservative ones are, albeit with a different focus for their morality.
For your viewing pleasure, four speeches by spiritual giants on public morality:
Share This Post! Because Sharing Really is Caring!
Here is another way to frame the conversation – something I learned from reading Amand Mauss.
In the early 20th century, the U.S. saw a divide within Christianity – those congregations that stressed the “Social Gospel,” and those that wanted to go back the fundamentals ( so called,”fundamentalists”).
Social Gospel = public morality
fundamentalism = private morality.
I endorse a healthy look-see at what’s moral and what’s not moral in society. It’s what prophets have been doing for a long time. But it’s going to have to begin with a rejection of the simplistic dichotomy given by Reich.
There is plenty to lament in the private behavior of ordinary people. No rot? Men who abandon women and offspring, and the removal of practically any restraint on modesty and sexual behavior, are creating a huge problem for society. Internet pornography (staunchly protected!) is destroying lives, marriages, and families (not so staunchly protected) as fast as a horse can run. Lying, cheating and stealing are epidemic.
The other problem is that the division of morality into private “vs.” public modes is artificial and too neat. The two are more intertwined than the division suggests. Doesn’t society comprise individuals whose public behavior at all times reflects their private morality?
The public behavior of people who control our economy (or leech off of it or just plain steal from it) is surely influenced by their “private morality,” is it not? Pitting people “motivated by private morality” – who are said to be “primarily interested in personal responsibility, private actions, and individual initiative” – over against those “motivated by public morality,” who are interested in “systemic reform, fundamental equality, and inspired justice” (all too transparently the good guys here, the ones with the correct values) is unhelpful and simplistic. Don’t the “private-morality” people believe that private actions and individual initiative themselves create good public morality? They likely believe that the “systemic reform” of the current government bureaucracy is exactly what is needed to steer public morality back where it should be. They may be wrong, but that’s the theory, and they have statistical evidence to back them up – as does the other side. And the idea that people pick and choose either private initiative or fundamental equality, but not both, is tough to believe – or prove.
As far as the church goes, the mandate has always been to change the inner person, by way of conversion to the true and living God, and thereby change public morality. One follows from the other. How will the Millennium come about? By an upgrading in public morality? Hardly. It comes with the complete elimination of the wicked. They are forcibly removed from the planet, period. Those who remain are those who can live in Millennial conditions. Who are the wicked? Well, they include at least those, “…who are liars and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. (D&C 76:103) Are they failures at private morality, or public morality, or both? Does scoring high on the Social Gospel cancel out lapses in private morality, balance the scales? How to disentangle? How does God portion out public morality lapses to individuals?
What was the Nephite experience? Here’s one description of a repeated strain:
“And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites— And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands.” (Helaman 4:12)
Good luck separating private from public morality here. And good luck separating it at all, anywhere.
My wary concern is this: Shifting the focus to something called “public morality” can too easily (and perhaps purposely) turn into an end run around private morality, give the world a free pass on it, thereby avoiding the unpleasantness and perceived intolerance of addressing what counts as wrong vs. right for individuals. Let’s be specific: What will be avoided is a discussion of chastity, the rejection of which is a ship that has already sailed and won’t be returning until the aforementioned Millennium. Just let people have as much free rein as they want in sexual expression; it’s of little or no relevance to (or completely independent from) the big, important social justice issues. Really?
The idea that public morality is going to result in any lasting happiness while private morality spirals down is a pipe dream. I see little value in seeing this as a “vs.” conflict. Private morality and public morality rise together or fall together. Neither is a conservative or liberal thing.
Let’s explore morality in all its manifestations. It is certainly worthwhile but I don’t believe it will prove as neat and tidy as the post suggests.
My first response rambles and is not as clear as it should have been. Here is a more concise summary:
I think it is better to continue to address social issues as social issues and not as “public morality” issues, where public morality is held to be a different “type” of morality than the morality individuals steer by. It’s like trying to divide up the water in a bucket into two kinds of water. In the two bullets in the post, which classify church responses into the proposed categories, why is “criminal justice” a private moral concern but not a public one? And how is “abortion” a public morality issue but not a private one as well? Morals are too interdependent to be usefully separated as methodological tools. The boundaries are too fuzzy. You can’t talk about one kind of morality for very long before you’re talking about the other one as well or about both at the same time. And to think of one type as “conservative” and the other as “liberal” is too inaccurate to be of much help; there will be plenty of counterexamples. Persons certainly behave differently as individuals and as members of groups, and we can and should engage social justice issues; I don’t see that creating a separate pool of morals to do this will bring the clarity sought for.
These videos were created for Latter-day Saint parents and allies to voice their love for their LGBT brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. They want to give a message of comfort and support to other parents who are navigating the difficult conflicts that can arise in families around this issue.
“Cogito!” (“I think!”) follows the intellectual adventures of a recovering academic outside the walls of academia.
Quote of the Month
"It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)
Good post Jeff.
Here is another way to frame the conversation – something I learned from reading Amand Mauss.
In the early 20th century, the U.S. saw a divide within Christianity – those congregations that stressed the “Social Gospel,” and those that wanted to go back the fundamentals ( so called,”fundamentalists”).
Social Gospel = public morality
fundamentalism = private morality.
What do you think?
I endorse a healthy look-see at what’s moral and what’s not moral in society. It’s what prophets have been doing for a long time. But it’s going to have to begin with a rejection of the simplistic dichotomy given by Reich.
There is plenty to lament in the private behavior of ordinary people. No rot? Men who abandon women and offspring, and the removal of practically any restraint on modesty and sexual behavior, are creating a huge problem for society. Internet pornography (staunchly protected!) is destroying lives, marriages, and families (not so staunchly protected) as fast as a horse can run. Lying, cheating and stealing are epidemic.
The other problem is that the division of morality into private “vs.” public modes is artificial and too neat. The two are more intertwined than the division suggests. Doesn’t society comprise individuals whose public behavior at all times reflects their private morality?
The public behavior of people who control our economy (or leech off of it or just plain steal from it) is surely influenced by their “private morality,” is it not? Pitting people “motivated by private morality” – who are said to be “primarily interested in personal responsibility, private actions, and individual initiative” – over against those “motivated by public morality,” who are interested in “systemic reform, fundamental equality, and inspired justice” (all too transparently the good guys here, the ones with the correct values) is unhelpful and simplistic. Don’t the “private-morality” people believe that private actions and individual initiative themselves create good public morality? They likely believe that the “systemic reform” of the current government bureaucracy is exactly what is needed to steer public morality back where it should be. They may be wrong, but that’s the theory, and they have statistical evidence to back them up – as does the other side. And the idea that people pick and choose either private initiative or fundamental equality, but not both, is tough to believe – or prove.
As far as the church goes, the mandate has always been to change the inner person, by way of conversion to the true and living God, and thereby change public morality. One follows from the other. How will the Millennium come about? By an upgrading in public morality? Hardly. It comes with the complete elimination of the wicked. They are forcibly removed from the planet, period. Those who remain are those who can live in Millennial conditions. Who are the wicked? Well, they include at least those, “…who are liars and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. (D&C 76:103) Are they failures at private morality, or public morality, or both? Does scoring high on the Social Gospel cancel out lapses in private morality, balance the scales? How to disentangle? How does God portion out public morality lapses to individuals?
What was the Nephite experience? Here’s one description of a repeated strain:
“And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites— And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands.” (Helaman 4:12)
Good luck separating private from public morality here. And good luck separating it at all, anywhere.
My wary concern is this: Shifting the focus to something called “public morality” can too easily (and perhaps purposely) turn into an end run around private morality, give the world a free pass on it, thereby avoiding the unpleasantness and perceived intolerance of addressing what counts as wrong vs. right for individuals. Let’s be specific: What will be avoided is a discussion of chastity, the rejection of which is a ship that has already sailed and won’t be returning until the aforementioned Millennium. Just let people have as much free rein as they want in sexual expression; it’s of little or no relevance to (or completely independent from) the big, important social justice issues. Really?
The idea that public morality is going to result in any lasting happiness while private morality spirals down is a pipe dream. I see little value in seeing this as a “vs.” conflict. Private morality and public morality rise together or fall together. Neither is a conservative or liberal thing.
Let’s explore morality in all its manifestations. It is certainly worthwhile but I don’t believe it will prove as neat and tidy as the post suggests.
My first response rambles and is not as clear as it should have been. Here is a more concise summary:
I think it is better to continue to address social issues as social issues and not as “public morality” issues, where public morality is held to be a different “type” of morality than the morality individuals steer by. It’s like trying to divide up the water in a bucket into two kinds of water. In the two bullets in the post, which classify church responses into the proposed categories, why is “criminal justice” a private moral concern but not a public one? And how is “abortion” a public morality issue but not a private one as well? Morals are too interdependent to be usefully separated as methodological tools. The boundaries are too fuzzy. You can’t talk about one kind of morality for very long before you’re talking about the other one as well or about both at the same time. And to think of one type as “conservative” and the other as “liberal” is too inaccurate to be of much help; there will be plenty of counterexamples. Persons certainly behave differently as individuals and as members of groups, and we can and should engage social justice issues; I don’t see that creating a separate pool of morals to do this will bring the clarity sought for.