In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 Notes to chapter 1 are on pp. 123-24. Author’s Standpoint Feminists have argued that objectivity demands intellectual credibility , a critical self-awareness of loyalties and biases, conscious emotional and spiritual engagement, communal engagement and ongoing self- and other-critique. Our identities are shaped by our context and experiences. As theological ethicist Sharon Welch argues, “Our vision is always perspectival. The problems we see and the solutions we envision cannot be separated from our social location. Interest is always operative and does need to be checked.”1 Neutrality, which is not the same as objectivity , is neither possible nor desirable; to profess it gives tacit support to accepted dominant norms, reinforces the status quo and keeps marginalized people in the margins. I assume a feminist understanding of objectivity and as such am committed to intellectual credibility, the clarification of context and loyalties, engagement and ongoing communal dialogue. My experiences, biases and loyalties inform the standpoint from which my analysis begins. My experience and context necessarily inform how I understand social ethical issues. I am a white, middle-class Canadian woman. I grew up in southern Ontario, have worked as a professor in theology at The University of Winnipeg, and am now a faculty member at Queen’s Theological College in Kingston, Ontario. I have a longstanding commitment to feminism. My first loyalty is to women, children and marginalized men. As an ordained minister of The United Church of Canada, a professor of theology, and a passionate seeker of justice and right relation, I have chosen to explore the United Church’s past, ongoing and present stands on ethical issues and policies. Our stories shape who we are, both individually and collectively. As Canadian ethicist Marilyn Legge insists, “Historical structures are not objectively ‘out there’ but are alive and well and forming the ongoing dynamics of the present.”2 Ethical Framework A feminist social ethical approach shapes this case study of The United Church of Canada. “Case study” is a relatively new way to talk about the historic discipline of casuistry, which is a way of approaching the study of chapter i Methodology ethics based on the analysis of particular cases. As ethicists Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin explain, casuistry is based on the discernment of patterns and generally agreed upon assessments of related paradigmatic cases.3 More problematic cases are then assessed by analogy to these less ambiguous ones. As more cases related to the paradigmatic ones are discovered and addressed, more factors arise for consideration in future, related cases. Both rules and changing contexts are relevant to this method of ethical decision making; as more voices or other variables are added to the mix, more complexities and pertinent factors are uncovered, and ethical decisions develop with each new case. As a result, although closure can be reached in particular cases, there are no final, once-and-for-all conclusions in larger issue areas. Consistent with the feminist social ethical approach of this book, casuistry presupposes a commitment to include a variety of voices and recognition of the relevance of context, including structures and systems. The limits of casuistry are reached in relation to violence against women, for example, when abusers or others who participate in the silencing of this violence deny or attempt to justify violence against women. Dialogue regarding what constitutes violence against women can be pursued unless the subjects ’ agenda is to deny and silence the entire issue. If this is not the case but, rather, the conflict pertains to differing understandings of violence against women, then casuistry can be an effective method for opening dialogue. For instance, it is generally recognized that violence against women is wrong as it is a clear violation of the moral rule against causing harm. However, it is not always clear to everyone what constitutes violence against women. A paradigmatic case that everyone could accept might be a man using his fist to punch a woman. However, in different contexts many people have been less clear as to whether a physical push, verbal put-downs, or even rape in marriage constitutes such violence. My intent is to identify and clarify some of the factors that have contributed to this lack of clarity and agreement on an official level among the United Church community in particular. One of my hopes in writing this book is that it will generate a greater awareness of the United Church’s story in relation to gender and sexuality. Without an informed...

Share