Public vs. Private Ethics

It has often been said, “What happens in privacy does not hurt anyone.” The motto for Las Vegas resonates this private versus public philosophy, “What happens in Las Vegas stays in Vegas.” Or does it? Does it get carried out by other means? Is anything truly secret? The implication of the two mottos above suggests that any indiscreet behavior that transpires in the privacy of a hotel room will not become publicly known and bring irreversible harm or affect that individual or the community. Accordingly, a person can be assured that there will be no public exposure of private indiscretions.

This raises the issue: Do private ethics have no bearing on public life or social ethics? Does what occurs in the privacy of a public official’s home or office have no influence on public or social policy decisions? Can private ethical behavior be separated from social ethics without consequences? Can there be public or social ethics without underlying personal ethics? Is there a legitimate bifurcation between private and public ethics? These questions go to the heart of law, the extent of morality, relationships development, the inner life and its outward expression, and public and social policy development.

Private Lives and Public Policy

David Gill of the University of Southern California cuts to the heart of the matter concerning private and public ethics with a brilliant assessment of the relationship between social and personal ethics,


“It is impossible to maintain a clear and precise distinction between social ethics and personal (individual) ethics. No individual behavior is without social implications. No social situation or problem is without individual repercussions.” [1]

According to Gill, public policy and social ethics are intertwined. He again writes,

“Public policy, politics, economics, war, poverty, education, racism, ecology, and crime: these are examples of the subject of social ethics.” [2]

All of the social institutions he identifies encompass a vast range of issues in every segment of society and cannot exist apart from individuals. Business, education, the church, professional associations, and government all involve people as they interact, exchange ideas, trade goods and services, and make decisions. They influence one another during these interchanges and affect the structure and moral environment of society.

A Case Study of Ethics in Government: Bill Clinton

In writing for the Associated Press, Richard Ostling states that many allies of former President Bill Clinton did not consider Clinton ineffective in spite of his moral sexual failures while in the White House. However, Ostling cites ethicists who contend otherwise: “that there is a necessary linkage between private character and public performance.” [3] He quotes Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary as saying, “A leader's personal "integrity and promise keeping" are especially important in the international arena.” [4] James B. Nelson of the United Theological Seminary also links private ethics with public influence and ethical leadership: “Clinton's deeds are clearly a public matter because they produce "disillusionment, further erosion of trust in officials, and dreadful distractions from pressing matters of public business.” [5]

However, not all ethicists or theologians share their view. The Reverend Joan Campbell of the National Counsel of Churches comments, "The private lives of our public leaders are best left private or we will have none allowed to lead." [6] Still another ethicist, Don Welch of Vanderbilt University law school adds what appears to be a middle ground, “If an employer is involved sexually with a private citizen outside the workplace, he says, "arguably that's none of our business." On the other hand, he says, sex with a subordinate that occurs at the office becomes a public matter.” [7]

However, is this truly a middle ground or simply a compromise based on situational ethics? If that private citizen is not his or her spouse and this employer is a high profile public figure that is head of a university, charitable organization, or influential corporation, does that change the argument? On what basis does the matter become the business of public ethics? What is the line between a private issue and a scandal? When does this sexual involvement cross the ethical line?

Any number of variables could be added to the situation concerning an employer and his or her sexual encounters. For example, is the employer married or single? However, without a moral base from which to distill an ethical judgment, morality becomes moot if approached from a situational stance.

[1] Gill, David W., Social Ethics in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapid: Baker Book House, 2001), 1116-1117.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ostling, Richard N., Ethics experts say president’s private life is necessarily public in Online Athens, Athens Banner-Herald, September 20, 1998, http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/092098/0920.a3clintonpublic.html.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.

How Shall We Then Lead?

What is reasonable to expect from our leaders in society? This small essay does not address expectations from the perspective of those led. Rather, it focuses on a much higher guidance for leadership - what God expects of us. Leadership spans beyond the smallest to the largest organizational unit, from the family to the largest corporation. It can only do so when there is a reference point higher than oneself.

Two sets of leadership qualities exist for the leader – a) internal and b) the expression of those internal qualities. Ranking high on the list of leadership qualities are: integrity, truthfulness, unselfishness, humility, patience, and wisdom.

Integrity expresses itself in consistency (and not perfection), equal treatment of people, practicing one’s moral core, blamelessness, and faithfulness. People do not expect perfection from their leaders, for they realize they will make mistakes. Rather how a leader responds to mistakes sets an example of genuine leadership. Recognizing and taking action rather than denying or covering up mistakes or shortcomings shows courage and strength – positive qualities people find attractive and willing to emulate.

Truthfulness expresses itself in speaking and acting truthful. One can only speak and act when there exists an inner moral core. Such a moral core does not rest on a “my truth versus your truth” mentality. Rather, as Chuck Colson recognized, truth is normative. [1] There are indeed absolutes, and people look for a moral core for guidance in their personal and professional lives rather than for chaos, confusion, and anarchy.

An unselfish leader does not seek his own way first. Rather a leader’s thoughts and motives are toward those led. Unselfishness does not neglect care for oneself or self-reflection. Such care and reflection means attending to moral, emotional, and physical fitness. In attending to these, one can lead others well.

Humility shows itself in self-control and not attempting to flaunt oneself before others. Flaunting reveals insecurities and an over estimation of oneself that tends to polarize rather than attract people. Humility does not assume a doormat mentality – permitting people to wipe off their shoes on you. Rather, humility integrates inner strength, love and care for people, and standing up selflessly for what is right. Self-control speaks to the inner discipline that recognizes when and where to speak and act.

Patience is humility under control. An impatient leader finds declining followers. An impatient leader tends to vent an uncontrolled set of emotions toward others rather than assuming responsibility for those emotions when confronted with the undesirable. Patience is a fruit having its roots in a tamed spirit. Tame does not assume lack of assertiveness but wears the clothing of self-control during confrontation or disagreeable circumstances.

Wisdom is the cup that draws from all of the above springs of ethical leadership. It rests on the foundations of truth and integrity, does not drink at the well of self-seeking, and finds its home in humility and patience. Above all, it feeds on the fear of God. This fear is a deep respect for Him and all He is and does. When wisdom latches on to the fear of God, it unlocks the door to a strong and abiding faith and hope in His providence. This produces strength of character and leads down the path of spiritual rewards beyond any earthly ones. It also provides an ethical core without which a people will soon do “what is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25) while taking the road to chaos and anarchy.

[1] Colson, Charles W., The Problem of Ethics in Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian Ethics, Spring 2004, Online Edition.

Who Stands For Truth?

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
-Thomas Paine
“Do you still hold fast to your integrity?”
-Job’s wife

Leadership and Truth

A plethora of ethical breaches across the American community leaves the world questioning the legitimacy of truth. A United States President lies on television about his affair just because he can. Molestations have arisen in the Roman Catholic Church at an alarming rate. The divorce rate is no different in the church than it is in American society. Financial fraud within businesses and churches has brought down many leaders. Many in leadership question truth regardless of its basis or source. Deception and fraud overwhelm the church universal within the United States so that it seems no different from any other group or organization.

David Alan Black asks, “Who stands for truth? Does anybody care?” His questions allude to what he previously wrote concerning divine guidance in our lives and nation. [1] In this article, Black points a finger at political governance and the lack of wisdom and scruples in denouncing the public display of the Ten Commandments but permitting a display of a cross immersed in urine. Truth, according to Black is the foundation for reasonable ethical leadership – truth and not acumen, administrative or pastoral skill, governance, or the ability to get a bill or measure passed through legislation whether in government or on a business or church Board. Whether among secular or spiritual leaders, truth must be the foundation for reasonable leadership. Leadership stands or falls on it. Other character traits have their source in truth.

In answer to the question, “What is a reasonable expectation of leadership in society, business, or the organizations?” the answer must always begin with truth. If we consider the myriad of ethical breaches in society, at their foundation is a lie: abuse, infidelity, perversion, breach of relationships, and compromise.

Israel’s King David puts it aptly when in the depths of bemoaning his own transgressions he writes, “Behold, you desire truth in the inward parts” (Psalm 51:6). He then connects wisdom with desire for truth. The issue for David was not so much that he was the model of perfection, but that integrity grip his heart and pump truth through his veins. He begs in transparency for cleanness before his God (51:10). To him, this meant the discipline of freedom (51:10), wholeness (51:12), confidence to stand for and speak truth to others (51:15), and humility (51:17). Slavery, brokenness, cowardice, shame, and deceit are all traits associated with a lie. They cannot stand alongside true leadership, because they will always trip up the leader and cause him or her to stumble. Therefore, David’s prayer sets up reasonable expectations for spiritual leadership, because all he asked he based on truth.

Chuck Colson identifies the bases for ethical behavior in society’s social structures. He writes, “How can you have ethical behavior? The crisis of character is totally understandable when there are no absolute values.” [2] He cites that ethics are normative. They do not change. They require a reference point beyond ourselves. If they have their source in human limitations and rationalization, chaos and anarchy would rule the day with relativism becoming the path down which these twins travel to destruction of society.

Guidelines for Leadership

The Bible provides ample guidelines for leadership in society. Three are most noteworthy. First, leadership must abide by the most essential principle: God is truth, its very source, and fundamental to ethical leadership. One step removed from this truth is one step closer to personal and community moral anarchy. Colson reviews the tragic circumstances of Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker. He asserts that Baker’s downfall was “violating what should be the most sacred trust of all: to speak for God and to minister to people in their spiritual needs.” [3] He suggests that Baker and Swaggart crossed the line in their departure from truth. They took several steps away from God and in doing so headed down the path toward moral collapse.

Second, be grounded in the truth. The Apostle Paul mentored Timothy and appointed him elder. He reminded him to be grounded in what he learned (2 Timothy 2:15). In this passage, Paul identifies two men who walked away from them. Their names stand as a legacy in the hall of shame as men who walked away from truth. History will always remember them in this manner. Is this the legacy we wish to leave to future generations? Colson calls for the need of moral consensus. He writes that a consensus must have its roots in Judeo-Christian values for society to exist. These values find their source in the Bible. Taking steps away from them is taking steps toward personal and societal destruction.

Third, avoid the peril of self-love. A phrase sometimes heard in counseling is that we must love ourselves before we can love others. I contend that Scripture teaches no such doctrine. I counter this with the greatest truth found in Great Commandment in the Shema of Deuteronomy:

“Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).

A person loves others rightly when he first loves God (1 John 5:2). Much of what is written about self-love today arises out of the yearning for self-esteem and self-realization. One issue associated with these self words is they all begin with self. Beginning with self tends toward an inward focus. This does not deny personal reflection. Self-examination is always healthy. The Reformer John Calvin encouraged it and asserted that it drives us to contemplate God and our subsistence in Him. [4]

Self-examination and self-love are exercises in contrast. The Bible warns about self-love and places it in the categories of love for materialism, pride, rebellion, and “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:2-4). It results from taking steps away from loving God toward loving the things of the world. Each step removes us farther from the Great Commandment (loving God). We should take care that human philosophy focused inward does not usurp divine mandate that turns our focus upward to God and outward to people.

We may say that these guidelines do not advance anything new. Quite right, they do not. They have all been said before and so why repeat them? We all need reminders concerning truth. Reminders make an imprint on our minds and guide our actions and behavior. Reminders play a continual record of what is right and wrong. Reminders give motivation for doing right. One who forgets is like one who loses a defense. He or she lets down a guard and leaves the battlefield scarred because of lack of practice when the battle was not near. Make 2007 a fresh start for truth.

[1] Black, David Alan, It’s Time to Abolish Art Welfare, http://www.daveblackonline.com/ it's_time_to_abolish.htm

[2] Colson, Charles W., The Problem of Ethics in Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian Ethics, Spring 2004, Online Edition.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 35.