Perspectief 2013-21

Perspectief 42 prof. dr. Fred van Iersel from a lack of interest, or even disdain – as if rationality in these domains is a privilege of atheists who accept the most radical form of Enlightenment, but even more: as if cultural, ethical and religious relativism is both starting point and end of all ethical reflection in the public domain. In this article I will present this problem in the form of an analysis of the most recent Agape document , as an example of Christian social ethics. Christian social ethics has a tougher job to do in order to be heard than liturgy and spirituality. More often it is perceived as moral language about obligations, which at first sight may not be very attractive to think about or respond to, both for non-Christians and for Christians. Yet due to the fact that the first and second commandment - the love to God and to our neighbour – according to Jesus are intertwined and equally important, it can't be missed in the Chris- tian life and the life of the churches. 55 Christian ethics refer at the same time to both the individual and collective life of Chris- tians: individual persons as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Merton or Martin Luther King and their personal social ethics may make a difference in the public domain. Yet the role of the collective, the institutional churches that is, is much more hard to define. What difference does it make when a Church as an institution speaks publicly about social Ethics? Who would or should care about these institutional voices? And which type of authority is sup- posed here: traditional, charismatic-prophetic, or the rational, expertise-based type of authority? 56 Whereas churches have less problems in operating along the lines of tradi- tional or charismatic authority, they often seem to fall short in arguing according to the standards of rational - legal authority. Christian social ethics is among the first victims of a lack of integration of these three types of authority. The public contribution to social ethics from the part of churches, as published in social encyclicals, declarations, pastoral letters, reports and public statements in the realm of social ethics therefore needs perma- nent clarification: Why is it done? What is it about? Whom is it meant for? Which aims are strived for when churches speak out? What exactly should they speak about, and when should they better keep silent? And how specific should churches be when speaking out 55 Mt 22: 34-40 56 M. Weber distinguished these three types of authority in: M. Weber, Die drei reine Typen legitimer Herr- schaft. In: M. Weber, Methodologische Schriften , Frankfurt, 1968