United Methodist Church Moral Compass: Analysis and Improvement

Introduction

A moral compass refers to the attributes that individuals and groups use to guide their lives with a sense of purpose and direction. Although different faiths subscribe to various types of "moral compass points," the United Methodist Church's moral compass provides a useful example for gaining a better understanding of its purpose, tenets, and potential for improvement. To this end, this paper reviews the relevant literature to discuss the moral compass espoused by the leaders of the United Methodist Church, identify opportunities for improvement, and consider which sources can facilitate that outcome.

A description of a compass chart and its four constituent categories — walking with God, a well-lived life, a good community, and a just society — is followed by a discussion of how the chart could be refined. An assessment of how a moral compass can be improved by drawing on the insights of Aristotle, Bennis and Goldsmith, Lebacqz, Erikson, Press, and others contributes to the conversation about moral agency, leadership, and moral reorientation. This is followed by an analysis of the role played by moral leaders in this enterprise. Finally, a summary of important findings concerning the United Methodist Church's current moral compass and how it can be improved is presented in the conclusion.

The Four Components of the United Methodist Moral Compass

The moral compass followed by the United Methodist Church is comprised of four constituent components: walking with God, a well-lived life, a good community, and a just society. Each is discussed in turn below.

Walking with God

The adage that "angels whisper to humans when they walk in the woods" is reflective of this moral compass component. The importance of walking with God has been an early and central theme in the Holy Bible. Sorge reports that, "From the very beginning, God had a relationship with Adam and Eve that found them 'walking in the garden in the cool of the day' (Genesis 3:8). God created man for the enjoyment of a walking relationship that involved companionship, dialogue, intimacy, joint decision-making, mutual delight, and shared dominion. God longs to walk with you, which is why his arms of grace have been pulling you into a closer walk with him." The list of biblical patriarchs who walked with God begins with Enoch. According to Sorge, "After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him (Genesis 5:22–24)."

Other biblical figures who walked with God included Abraham ("And he said unto me, The Lord, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house" — Genesis 24:40 KJV) and Noah ("These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God" — Genesis 6–9 KJV). It is important to note that achieving the final components of the moral compass — a good community and a just society — requires first performing this component. As Sorge concludes, "God wants to walk with us before he works through us. So he will wait to act until he finds the right man or woman through whom he can work. To put it bluntly, God works with his friends. When God has a friend, divine activity accelerates. When God has a useful vessel that has been prepared for noble purposes, he will use that vessel."

In this context, it is also important to note that "walking with God" does not necessarily mean taking a literal stroll in a garden or a hike through the woods in order to communicate with the Creator. It can be understood more metaphorically as spiritually communing with God in ways that contribute to a well-lived life, a good community, and a just society.

A Well-Lived Life

Although this moral compass component is a priority in many religions, the United Methodist Church has made clear that "there is no greater witness for the Kingdom of God than a life well-lived." Importantly, a well-lived life does not necessarily mean an extraordinary life; rather, it refers to a life devoted to trusting and following God's loving guidance, which is also fundamental to the first component, walking with God. As Pegram adds, "The life that is well-lived, the life that is an incredible asset to the Kingdom of God, making an eternal difference is not usually extraordinary! It is an ordinary life committed to walk with God, to trust God, and to live in God's ways."

A Good Community

This moral compass component dates to antiquity and has long been regarded as an important outcome of walking with God and living life well. Trefts notes, "I would like people to consider how they can play a role in their local communities at beginning and sustaining the ancient questions that go back to Socrates and the Bible." As Socrates rationalized early on, "Wouldn't we say that morality can be a property of whole communities as well as of individuals?" The moral compass that promotes a good community can, however, be highly subjective and vary considerably depending on prevailing definitions of what constitutes a good community across different times and places, as the ancient examples of Sodom and Gomorrah made clear.

A Just Society

Some authorities adopt a strictly pragmatic view of a just society based on how basic liberties are guaranteed and protected, and on whether equitable access to available resources is ensured. Pettit argues that, "Any society that provides well for freedom will count as just. If the society entrenches each [freedom] against the danger of interference from others in the domain of the basic liberties, then it will count plausibly as a just society." This pragmatic perspective is highly congruent with the United Methodist Church's moral view that charitable acts must likewise be applied equitably. As Bauer points out, "The goal of creating a just society that keeps inequality in check is still applicable even if the laws are not. Charity can be governed by the whim or favoritism, but we are taught that such action is unacceptable. The obligation is to create a just society and not to rule over the poor with acts of charity."

This assertion suggests that because resources are by definition scarce and represent a zero-sum game — if some poor people are fed and housed, there will be fewer of these resources available for others — creating and sustaining a truly just society requires first walking with God and living life well in order to develop a good community that places a high priority on these issues. As Calhoun emphasizes, "any real society is a caregiving and care-receiving society, and must therefore discover ways of coping with these facts of human neediness and dependency that are compatible with the self-respect of the recipients and do not exploit the caregivers."

Taken together, the four constituent components of a moral compass provide a viable framework within which individuals of all faiths can make the world a better place during their lives and thereafter. As with anything, however, a moral compass can be improved, and these issues are discussed further below.

The Role of Moral Leaders in Moral Reorientation

Although recalibrating a magnetic compass is a straightforward matter, the same cannot be said of recalibrating moral compasses. A number of sources are available, however, that can assist moral leaders in this task, including works by ancient and modern theorists and theologians on moral agency, leadership, and moral reorientation. The concept of moral agency refers to the ability of individuals to "discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm." Moral agency is generally applied only to individuals who possess the requisite capacities to recognize right from wrong. Because a just society holds people accountable for their actions, children and adults who are mentally disabled are typically legally excluded from the assignment of moral agency.

In order to lead morally, Bennis and Goldsmith emphasize the need for individuals to perform an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. The process is not an easy one; it involves soliciting and accepting feedback from others (for example, "if enough people call you a horse, you'd better buy a saddle") and remaining vigilant about new opportunities to refine this assessment. Most people are highly reluctant to accept even honest constructive criticism because it threatens their longstanding perceptions of themselves as rational, capable, and dedicated individuals.

Nevertheless, despite the challenges involved, the process serves to enhance moral leadership in vital ways. By better understanding their strengths and weaknesses, moral leaders can contribute more effectively where their actions can have the most impact. As Bennis and Goldsmith point out, "It is an intense journey to achieve a positive sense of ourselves and know our abilities and our limitations. We get there by understanding what it takes for us to learn about ourselves, by being able to solicit and integrate feedback from others, by continually keeping ourselves open to new experiences and information, and by having the ability to hear our own voice and see our own actions."

According to Aristotle, people who act in immoral ways are simply demonstrating a form of ignorance of what is good, based on the same types of goals that are shared by all humans. This observation indicates that moral leaders can help individuals who engage in immoral behaviors by counseling them on how their unique goals can be achieved in a moral fashion. As Boylan reports, Aristotle argued that "when one [engages] in unethical conduct, one is exhibiting a form of ignorance."

This argument suggests that as people grow and learn about what is good, their goals can be achieved in moral ways — a view consistent with human developmental theorists such as Erikson. Buetow notes that "Erikson treats ethics and religion as patterns of personal and social responsibility." From Erikson's perspective, the development of religious identity typically begins during stage 5, peer relationships (ages 12 to 18), of young people's lives. This means that moral leadership becomes especially important during this phase in order to help young people develop a healthy and appropriate religious identity and stay on a sound moral compass heading.

Other authorities maintain that longstanding precepts about how best to develop and sustain a just society must be replaced with more compassionate views about the plight of the economically and socially oppressed — even when the law does not demand it. Serving as a moral leader requires not only recognizing the numerous serious problems that constantly face a community and society, but also possessing the compassion necessary to develop a better understanding of these problems in real-world settings rather than through abstract statistical analyses. Franklin (1990) emphasizes that "no theory of American public life can be adequate without sustained attention to the present implications of the enslavement of Africans or the systematic exclusion of women." Indeed, race relations have seemed to reach new low points in the United States in recent years, and the glass ceiling has been cracked but not broken.

While the existing methods of ensuring a just society — such as reliance on census data and unemployment statistics — are essential and even constitutionally required, it is also important for moral leaders to have the courage to expand on these analyses in informed ways. Press (2013) makes the point that many people are compelled to take the low road when confronted with moral dilemmas, most especially when their own self-interests are at stake. Lapointe (2016) advises that Press "combines narrative journalism with a wide range of psychological and philosophical literature to explore 'the mystery of what impels people to do something risky and transgressive when thrust in a morally compromising situation'" and recommends that they "stop, say no and resist."

Lebacqz argues that, "If there is to be an approach to justice that takes injustice seriously, then it will require new forms of logic. It will require a logic that hears the tears in the slums and does not overrule them simply because they are passionate." By pointing their moral compass in this direction, moral leaders will be better positioned to identify injustices in ways that significantly contribute to developing and sustaining a just society. Lebacqz provides an overview of philosophical and theological ethics from three different perspectives to argue that effective and timely responses to injustice demand the ability to draw on a wide range of resources in order for leaders to formulate a personal moral compass.

This level of moral reorientation does not take place immediately — not overnight, and not even over days or months — but frequently involves years and even a lifetime of personal introspection and reflection, a process that can be painful when substantive changes are needed. It is also important to note that virtually any just society will suffer from some types and levels of injustice, including especially countries with enormous populations of diverse people whose interests and goals are profoundly different. Developing and sustaining a just society is not a static enterprise; it requires ongoing oversight to identify and remedy injustices. As Lebacqz stresses:

Justice is a renovation, a new beginning, but not a complete undoing of injustice. It is never perfect, because it is always framed by past and present injustices. But it represents the possibility of new beginnings in a better order that does not necessarily result from an extension of present injustices. Injustice reigns. But it does not have to. Justice, properly understood with all its limitations, is a possibility. The vision of a just society is an impossible one, which can be approximated only by those who do not regard it as impossible.

This is an interesting and timely observation because it underscores the harsh realities of human civilization, including relentless competition for scarce resources and the tendency to place individual self-interest above the community. It also makes clear that moral leaders can play an important role in achieving the seemingly impossible vision of a truly just society — despite the numerous challenges involved — if they apply the "new forms of logic" advocated by Lebacqz.

Assuming that leaders develop and follow a sound moral compass aligned with the teachings of the United Methodist Church, a final important consideration in moral reorientation is formulating a vision of which compass points should be followed. As Orchard cautions, "While both the concept of a moral compass and the definition of morality are simple and clear, the concept of what constitutes morality is not. One person's moral compass may not point in the same direction as another's, as far as right and wrong conduct and belief are concerned." Traditionally, the north compass point has been conceptualized as "the right direction," and this view has been applied to moral compasses as well.

The numerous high-profile examples of major political leaders and celebrities behaving badly have caused some observers to argue that the moral compass has "turned south," implying that society is headed in the wrong direction. Indeed, the list of national politicians, movie stars, and sports figures involved in scandals grows every day, and headlines are regularly filled with new reports of inappropriate behavior, lending apparent credibility to concerns about the "moral compass heading" of society.

Other authorities counter that these same types of human behaviors have always existed and are not more common today — they are simply better publicized due to innovations in telecommunications technologies, most especially the Internet. Regardless, the important point that emerges from this analysis is the overarching need to ensure that everyone's moral compass is pointed in the same direction, based on a shared understanding of what these compass points actually mean. As Orchard concludes, "Because of man's propensity to always treat the effects instead of addressing the cause, the solution to wavering moral compasses will continue to prove elusive. Until society recognizes the need for a single absolute authority to establish the difference between right and wrong, no solution will ever be possible."

Conclusion

Everyone has a moral compass, whether they realize it or not, that they use to navigate the exigencies of the human condition and to satisfy their self-interest. Whether their moral compass is pointed in the right direction depends on a number of factors, but the research was consistent in showing that people generally behave immorally as a form of ignorance — one that precludes them from perceiving and understanding the ineffectiveness of their moral compass in attaining their unique personal goals in a moral fashion. The four moral compass constituent components of walking with God, a well-lived life, a good community, and a just society represent a valuable starting point for moral leaders.

The moral compass points are not mutually exclusive; rather, each point is a step in a lifelong journey that, properly and consistently applied, culminates in a just society. This type of moral leadership responsibility is not the sole domain of the United Methodist Church — its moral compass reflects the teachings of many other faiths as well as Christian dogma. Therefore, regardless of the faith involved, it is reasonable to conclude that walking with God and a well-lived life can contribute to building good communities and a just society.