For the Common Good
INTERVIEW
Part 2 of an interview with Eugene Yapp
Eugene, the document “Christian Social Vision for Malaysia” signed and published by the Kairos Dialogue Network uses an interesting expression:
“To work in partnership with all citizens regardless of race or religion to forge a shared social vision aimed at realizing equal citizenship, so that all Malaysians may work together for the common good to build a just, peaceful and prosperous society.”
And this is also seen in the pledge – “To pledge our commitment to dialogue and engagement for the common good in Malaysia.”
What is meant by working for the “common good” of society?
As I said before, society consists of all layers of people, and includes people of different ideology, backgrounds, and persuasions, whether religious, moral and ethical. The big implication is this—such diversity will affect what is the conceptual good for everyone. Amid this diversity, the logic would be that one group cannot assume that what they think is good, is good for another group. This is simply because one group’s definition of good may be defined as bad for another group, because of the diverse background persuasion previously described. So in that case, if this equation is pressed too far, what we will have is conflict. If I insist on what is good for all community, and the other community does not see that it is good but bad, I have pressed that equation too far, and what we will have is conflict. The question remains for society, is how to structure and order itself in such a way that everyone feels that something that is defined as good, is actually good for all.
So there must be some sort of social order, some sort of structure and definition of good for everyone, not just one group or one particular community. This is a question that applies to all people in society. For the Christians, we are also confronted with that question. In practical terms it sounds like this – “is what I define as good, also good for Muslims?” The Muslim could say yes, or no. So the Christians and the church will have to realise that we cannot define something that is good for me upon others, because it might not be considered good by everyone else. The question they have to ask is this: “What is the biblical justification for defining that what is good for us is good for everybody?” One of the biblical justifications developed by the Catholics according to the Catholic tradition is the concept of “common good”.
That concept of common good is the biblical justification where Christians can say I can determine what is good, but that good is good for everyone, not just for Christians. The concept of common good basically means that every human being is created in the image of God. As people created in the image of God, human beings are vested with certain capacity to decide and determine what is good for them—that capacity is in the human being. Although sin has come into the world, it has not destroyed that capacity, but merely distorted or marred it. So that capacity is there but it is no longer functioning in full maximum capacity or full terms.
The concept of common good comes that as human beings, we have that capacity to decide what is good, for entire human life based on general principles of what is good for life. No society and no community will say that human beings do not have the right to live. That is a general principle of life in which everyone can decide. No society and no community will say that you can steal and kill another person to live. These are general moral principles of life for any society.
In terms of historical development, every society, every community, every civilisation has rules and regulations that adhere to all these general principles. The question of how sophisticated they are and how effective they are is another question. But generally there are rules and regulations and laws to regulate social order and social life. And these rules and regulations comes from this idea of upholding a common good. But the common good itself is not sufficient because the question is this – how common is common? Biblically, the Christian church has developed another concept called public justice.
Public justice basically means that in every area of society, in every sphere of society such as economy, government, politics, religion, media etc, these spheres of society have their own function and boundaries. Public justice demands that in these areas, these spheres of influence in society and public life respect each other’s functions and boundaries.
What is the area of intervention between these spheres, how extensive the area of intervention is subject to debate, discussion, guided by the principle of common good? This is where the two theological concepts are at work and provide the biblical theological justification that enables Christians and the church as an institution to come into public life. These conceptions are important because without understanding these conceptions there will be no biblical justification for the involvement in public life.
Let me quote to you the views of the American Catholic bishops on the view of common good in public life. They say this – “In our letters to our congregation we write as pastors but not as public officials, we speak as moral teachers, not economic technicians – we seek not to make some political or ideological point, but to lift up the human and ethical dimensions of economic life aspect too often neglected in public discussion”.
When the church comes into making the common good they are not giving their views as technicians whether political, economic, media, legal. But they speak as teachers of moral life, seeking to uplift the human and ethical dimension of life. So that’s the principle by which the church contributes to what is public good or common good. What constitutes common good and public justice have to be discussed in all aspects and with all groups of society. Each has a say in the public space.
The difference between the politicians and the church is this: when the church speaks, they speak not as technicians but as teachers providing the moral voice or the moral conscience of public life, seeking to uplift human and ethical dimensions of life.
Have you heard of the term moralism that carries a negative connotation (in Christian circles) and do you have feedback on this discourse?
Moralism is seeing everything from a viewpoint of what is good and bad. In one sense of the word, Christians are moralists because we have to determine what is good in terms of what is moral and ethical, because the bible itself is full of moral and ethical life. So we cannot escape the idea. But the difference between the Christian church and those who are strictly the secular moralist is this—our conception of what is morally valuable and ethical stems from the understanding of the revelation from God as He reveals Himself as to what He is doing.
Whereas for moralists, they say that what is moral is determined from our own human individual autonomy. That’s the big difference. They are humanists but it’s not that they cannot determine what is moral – as I said, every human has the capacity to determine what is generally good for our lives, that includes morality and ethics but what the Christian is saying is this—their conception of what is moral and ethical is not sufficient because their capacity to conceive what is good is marred and tainted by sin. That is the Christian position, in which the moralists will not accept. Regardless and irrespective, the concept of common good says that both Christian and non-Christian moralists can decide together what is good because there is a human capacity to decide what is common good for everyone.
What then becomes that good in terms of its context will have to go through the process of deliberation, debate, discussion, dialogue in the short, intermediate and long-term, applying the principles of what is public justice for all.
You’re saying that not all Christians will be involved in public life?
The analogy is simple. All Christians are called to be witnesses – that is the biblical imperative. All Christians are called to be salt and light. That’s the command. Now how do you become salt and light, some evangelise, some go missions abroad, but not all do those things. Not all do social eradication of poverty. So the same applies here.
But the church when seen collectively, when all these individuals who are called to their play their different aspects – evangelism, mission, poverty eradication, marketplace, social community transformation, urban missions and the whole aspect of all this, as the church gets involved in all this, we see that the entire church is exercising its public witness, exercising its mandate as salt and light.
The problem arises if the church becomes atomistic and micro. When we pick and choose those areas, we inadvertently start to neglect the others in our teaching, and treat them as areas that are not essential.
>> NEXT: De-dichotomising heavenly and earthly matters
