Faith, Leadership and Public Life. Preston Manning
from tainted blood and the allegations that an earlier Liberal administration had ignored early warnings of this danger because it did not want the matter to become an election issue; and the denial by the government that its leadership had ever promised to “kill, scrap, or abolish” Canada’s goods and services tax during the previous election campaign, when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary.58
During the daily Question Period I asked the prime minister, “Do any of these activities violate the prime minister’s ethical standards, or by his standards are all these activities ethically acceptable?” Later in the day at a meeting of a special joint committee of the House and Senate on a code of ethics for members of Parliament I asked the prime minister’s ethics counsellor the same question.
In both cases, each professed to see no ethical issues with respect to the activities in question, only “differences of opinion on matters of policy between the government and the opposition.” In essence, this was a fall back to moral relativism, which eviscerates many ethical discussions in the political arena and elsewhere by adhering to the notion that you are entitled to your ethical standards and I am entitled to mine, but neither of us is entitled to judge or challenge the standards of the other, because there are no absolute moral standards, only differences of opinion as to what constitutes ethical conduct.59
On one further occasion during my last year in Parliament, I again became acutely aware of the insufficiency of the instinctive approach of politicians to ethics while dealing with an important piece of legislation. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I was involved in reviewing a draft bill for the regulation of assisted human reproduction, related stem cell research, and human cloning. These activities are fraught with ethical considerations, and we sought the advice of several expert ethicists to assist us in dealing with them. It soon became apparent, however, that a majority of my colleagues on the committee favoured a utilitarian approach to the ethical issues in question—an approach that pragmatic politicians instinctively favour. Simply identify the costs and benefits of the activity in question, and if the benefits outweigh the costs, then the activity is ethically justifiable. If the ratio of benefits to costs is not favourable enough, keep expanding the definition and scope of benefits until you get the justification you want.
This approach does not even rely on a code of ethics and is in conflict with so-called deontological ethics, which insist that we have an inherent obligation or duty to act in accordance with certain specific rules of conduct derived from reason or accepted beliefs, regardless of whether to do so maximizes some defined good or minimizes some defined harm.60 This is why attempts to ensure that the bill included a clause recognizing an inherent obligation on the part of Canadians to respect human life—regardless of pragmatic arguments for taking, preserving, or manipulating it based on the costs and benefits of doing so—were completely disregarded.
A Different Road to Ethical Behaviour
So what were the distinguishing features of Jesus’ approach to ethics and which features characterized his training of the disciples in this regard? And how does his approach differ from the conventional approach to ethics today?
First of all, he presents and demonstrates love—self-sacrificial love—as the supreme ethic, which if practised will ensure that all the other ethical demands of the law (the code) will be met. “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”61
According to Bruce,
[Jesus] described the ethics of the kingdom, as a pure stream of life, having charity [i.e., love] for its fountainhead; a morality of the heart, not merely of outward conduct; a morality also broad and catholic, overleaping all arbitrary barriers erected by legal pedantry and natural selfishness.62
Of course, in the end he not only taught this ethic, he demonstrated it in an unforgettable way by his own self-sacrifice on the cross.
Note that this ethic is not a utilitarian ethic—it does not rest on a calculation of costs and benefits to either the individual or the society embracing it—but is presented as inherently worthy of adoption because of its source. As described later by the apostle Paul, love keeps no record of wrongs or of its own accomplishments (that is, it keeps no record of its costs or benefits). “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”63
Second, Jesus teaches his early followers that the inner transformation required to adopt and practise this ethic involves committing yourself to and following a being morally superior to yourself who already embodies and practises this supreme ethic. As a result, he draws the disciples to himself, saying, “Love each other as I have loved you,” and points them and other seekers to a loving God as the ultimate source of this morality.64 When one such seeker asks, “Good teacher … what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replies, “Why do you call me good? … No one is good—except God alone.”65 God himself is the being who is morally superior to us all. Draw near to him, and you will draw near to the ultimate source of morality.
Note that Jesus does not disparage those who honestly strive to adhere to a code of ethics, in particular the law of Moses. In fact, Jesus says,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore … whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”66
But he teaches that the code of ethics contained in the law of Moses is to be fulfilled not by adding regulation on regulation or constantly tightening its compliance and enforcement regime but by committing ourselves to a person who embodies and practises it fully, in this case Jesus himself. Therefore, the code of ethics becomes a means to an end—a guardian or schoolmaster, as the apostle Paul was later to write—to drive us toward a relationship with that morally superior being who embodies and fulfills it.67
Third, Jesus demonstrates to the disciples that in the hands and company of himself, the embodiment of self-sacrificial love, his followers will begin to see moral and ethical issues in situations that the mere adherents to the law are blind to. For example, in his Sermon on the Mount he actually tightens the ethical demands of the law rather than relaxing them, saying,
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment … You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”68
He rebukes the Pharisees in particular for professing to see a moral obligation to practise tithing even with respect to their use of spices but being blind to their moral obligations in weightier matters demanding justice, mercy, and faithfulness.69 At the same time,