Moral Decisions

Friends,
Amidst the often harsh, immoral ethics of the modern world, like most of you I try to keep supporting my own alternative moral roots to provide stability and hope. I have recently, for example, been reflecting on my moral decision making, and how does it compare with cultural norms. How much do I rely on principle and rules versus moral decisions based on empathetic relationships?

To explore that question I want to briefly share the challenge of dealing with one of the toughest moral decisions of my career as director of the Maine Council of Churches (MCC). The moral question was how our board was to respond to a request from the Maine tribes to support them on a statewide gambling referendum that would allow the tribes to open a casino as other tribes had done nationally. When the request was discussed at the next meeting board members were clearly divided about how to respond. Some held to the principle that gambling was inherently a moral and social violation based on their personal experience with addicted gamblers. Other board members felt the gambling referendum provided the churches an opportunity to risk an expression of a long-neglected supportive relationship with the tribes. We identified three options: support the referendum, remain neutral; or oppose it. We did not feel united with any of these decisions, and it was our understanding that we would only make major decisions on the basis of unity. So we had to call a second board meeting to discuss the matter further. At the end of the second board meeting we finally, very cautiously, decided on neutrality, and I was to go with another board member to respectfully explain our position in person to tribal leadership.

Because of the racist overtones of the situation an African-American board member agreed to accompany me. In preparation for our meeting with tribal leadership I asked him to meet me for breakfast to plan our presentation. After we assessed the situation he said “I want to ask you the key question: Is it better to decide on principle or on relationship." After a fairly long and thoughtful pause, I realized I was siding on the basis of principles, and I said I thought we should act on principle and at least remain neutral. My friend did not hesitate to tell me I was wrong. I agreed with him that the matter of relationship with the tribes was more important than being “right” on the issue of gambling per se. Neutrality was not support.

The meeting then with tribal leadership was a disaster. Not two people as I expected, but a dozen tribal members showed up at our meeting, and each person spoke angrily in turn about our milquetoast decision and its hypocrisy. "If your moral opposition to gambling is so important," they said, "why didn’t you speak out about the gambling on the tribal reservations that paid for many of the buildings and schools over the years rather than have them built with state money. And what about the gambling in social clubs across the state. Why were you so concerned now?” We had to ask how racism was affecting our decision. My board member, fully aware of the racism involved, was especially stricken and shamed by the lecture we received, as was I. We agreed we needed to return to our board and report what was said and see if our decision could be changed..

So a third board meeting was hastily called, and we reported the resounding angry disappointment we received from the tribal members. We continued to struggle with an immediate, real-life challenge between upholding the principle of the evils of gambling and our shame and guilt for again failing to support Maine tribes with their request. Through continued soul searching and some tears, we finally all decided we would have to continue our neutral position... but we assuaged our guilt about the morally weak decision by agreeing we would somehow find alternative ways to support tribal economic development. But we didn’t have a clue how.  Another tribal betrayal was likely.

There is, fortunately, a somewhat redeeming ending to this tale. Later I remembered attending an annual meeting of a local community economic development program in Maine that began with a smudging ceremony, and I figured they had an established working relationship with the tribes, which they did. I was thus introduced to the newly formed, independent Four Directions Development Corporation run by the tribes. With the support of the MCC board I was then able to establish a fundraising program in conjunction with the tribes and subsequently we were able to raise more than three million dollars of donations from churches, congregant family trusts, and personal donations, among others, much of it also matched with state and federal funds. I continued to work personally with the Four Directions leadership for a several more years to raise money and support their legislative requests which eventually established an increased positive relationship of trust that continues with Four Directions into the present. So the board, with considerable luck and hard work, felt we had fulfilled some of our commitment to support tribal economic development, but we honestly knew this was not an adequate moral response to the long-standing neglect in the past.

My story is a prime example of the complexity of many moral decisions in our daily lives. But more, it is to emphasize what I consider to be the importance of relational considerations over established laws and principles. I am reminded that the primacy of relationship was at the heart of Jesus teaching when he challenged and overrode existing Judaic laws with a radical, relational emphasis on compassionate recognition and respect for the notable outcasts in his society - tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, occupational military personnel, the mentally ill, even enemies, for example. It was risky business for him to choose relationship over rules just as it is now. Of course we need just laws, guidelines, and cultural expectations of conduct in order for a society to function on a reasonably even keel. But an essential part of our highest morality is always to give empathetic, humane, compassionate consideration as we make daily decisions in our lives.

I am hoping my story will help guide you in dealing with similar dilemmas in your life. How might you handle moral decisions as you also toggle between the hard-wired principles in life and the much more subjective ones regarding relationship? Based on his teaching I think we know what Jesus would do, as would all those who actually treat others with dignity, compassion, and loving support for the common good. Aspiring to model and support in others a “higher bar” of personal morality in these times may be the most radically political thing we can do!

Peace,
Tom