A Global Ethic: Pie in the Sky Idealism?

This month is the fifth gathering of the Parliament of World Religions in Melbourne, Australia. The first parliament was held in 1893 in Chicago and was not held again until a century later. The purpose of the assembly has been to spur greater understanding among the world religions and find common points of agreement. Hans Küng, a prominent Catholic theologian, has been a leading voice in setting the agenda for the parliament. One of the aims has been to put forth “a global ethic,” that is, a minimum morality on which all people of faith and good will (so it includes even the non-religious) can agree. The ultimate goal is to use this declaration to marshal the faithful of all religions to pressure governments to fulfill the demands of the Global Ethic.

The Global Ethic affirms four principles it sees as central: 1) non-violence and respect for all life, 2) economic justice and solidarity, 3) tolerance and truthfulness, and 4) equal rights and partnership between men and women. These four principles, believes Küng, will serve to create peace in the world.

Comparing this declaration to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights reveals many similarities. Both declarations have a view of creating a more just and peaceful world. All that is good. But the Parliament’s declaration, like the U.N.’s, is no more effective than a beauty queen’s wish for world peace: it’s beautiful to hear but of no consequence, kind of like wishing that all 6 billion inhabitants of the world had a million dollars in their bank accounts; wishing it won’t make it so. While all people of good will want peace and truthfulness in all relations, these values are not fully realizable in the modern world. They are not realizable because many believe Truth does not exist; there is only “my truth” and “your truth.” Such epistemological relativism means that there cannot be peace, because the foundation of peace is Truth. Whether peace with God, peace of soul, or world peace, all depend on Truth for their attainment. From a Christian standpoint, there is objective Truth (Jn. 17:17) and peace with God is only possible after we acknowledge the truth about ourselves: that we are sinners in rebellion against God.

Jesus’ life and words revealed the irreconcilability of truth and peace in this sinful world and why a new world order, not made with human hands, is necessary. When he said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt. 10:34), it was the lamentable recognition that speaking the truth of God will result in hostility and ultimately violence against the truth-bearer. Jesus knew he would be crucified because He spoke the truth. In a world rife with deception and self-deception, therefore, the possibility of peace is indeed remote for the deceivers and the self-deceived will always oppose and strike out in violence against those who proclaim the truth.

This Christmas we once again announce the Gospel Truth that the Prince of Peace has come and that repentance is the first step to peace. Many Parliaments will be held, many declarations made, but peace will always remain elusive.