Personal⤒🔗

The title for this article is not entirely free from one-sidedness. After all, one could just as easily state the opposite forcefully: “Personal responsibility is the strongest form of responsibility”! Indeed, it all depends on what we mean with “personal responsibility”. I can use this combination of words to indicate that I am also personally involved in collective responsibilities. There are people who do not care how the graffiti on walls and streetcar upholstery is removed. The community (or municipality) will take care of this: they do not feel any personal responsibility here and therefore they easily act irresponsibly. It is therefore the opposite of people who, because of the communal responsibility for community goods, also take a personal interest in the hygiene of their apartments. In this connection it appears that the sense of responsibility actually increases, the more people will feel a personal responsibility. In these examples, with “personal responsibility” we mean an intensification of a general responsibility.

If we are not mistaken, however, the phrase is increasingly being used for something quite different. This ties in to a personal responsibility that is isolated from the communal one. We may hear the question, “Isn’t it everyone’s personal responsibility to organize his life the way he wants or sees it?” When he or she wants to move in together, in whatever alternative form, then that is exclusively a personal matter, is it not? In the 1980s we are living in the midst of the narcissistic me-culture. Responsibility then also becomes a completely personal matter of what “I” will determine, thereby leaving out other people, norms or relationships of cohabitation. The state is simply there to create the right conditions or climate in which the sum total of the personally-experienced responsibilities can exist or grow. We are now talking about this second form of so-called “personal responsibility” and we assert that this does not represent a responsibility.

In the Church←⤒🔗

There is indeed reason to discuss this topic, even within the church. The spirit of the times does not leave us unaffected. We, too, are in the midst of a draft and can catch a cold! While in many larger church denominations the Reformed morals — a form of communal responsibility — have rapidly given way to completely individualized lifestyles, and only a few still hang on to a fossilized tradition, we also see within “our” Reformed circle a declining interest in maintaining or developing Reformed morals in the sphere of personal ethics.

It is true that after the Liberation of 1944, a development based on Christian morality came about in the area of collective facilities such as Reformed schools, organizations, societies, travel, special training, etc. While we do not expound more about these, this is not for lack of recognition and appreciation. We do hope and pray that these new “traditions” will have a long and real life for the benefit of the communion of saints. Right now, however, we are dealing with an aspect that might be forgotten in all this, and that concerns the personal ethic. I am thinking of morals in areas such as leisure activities, courtship, friendship, world-avoidance, dancing and disco, Sunday observance, drinking, spending money, and so much more. For many of these, the older “rules of morality” are disappearing at an increasing rate while newer ones are not being developed collectively. The main problem here, in my view, is that a certain fear is present in speaking to others about these areas in a constructive, questioning or admonishing sense. This fear is fed by some vague realization that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. This realization is very clearly expressed in one area: when it concerns the TV the dogma applies: “Everyone has to control the on/off button him/herself”.

And is personal responsibility not also a great given? Should we not be concerned about rigid formalism and traditionalism? Should the children of the church not be taught to be independent and empowered? It all sounds so obvious that we are even embarrassed by it. Who would dare to deny this in general? But the question remains: is personal responsibility not only safe within a shared responsibility? Should we not only start talking about personal responsibility after we have first jointly fulfilled our responsibility as a church — also in the elaboration of a Christian lifestyle in our present time?

After all, it is not without reason that the apostle addresses the Philippians collectively about the interpretation of Christian conduct when he writes to everyone: “Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Whatever you have learned and received and heard and seen in me — practise these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:8-9).

Biblical←⤒🔗

The isolation of personal responsibility and the promotion of its autonomy are often stimulated in the church by a certain biblicism. It is clear to everyone in the church that the Bible is the norm and the guideline for our way of life. However, this basic principle can be manipulated in a biblicist and minimizing way — such that it almost states its opposite. You can recognize this in a parenting situation. A father forbids his children to do something or tells them to do something else. He can then quickly be confronted with the apparently pious question: “Where in the Bible does it say that?” And does the parent not then look deflated? After all, you do not find in the Bible that you cannot go to the disco bar with a girlfriend. Also it is not written anywhere in the Bible that a person has to go to church twice on a Sunday or that he has to attend a Bible study club. Here the Bible is used to claim a significant piece of personal responsibility. Where the Bible remains silent, the neighbour should keep his mouth shut as well. This is where the person has arrived at his or her own empowered responsibility!

One might chuckle somewhat at the brusque way in which young people want to get around the things their parents say, but here we encounter a certain manner of using the Bible that can also be applied in a more responsible and controlled form. This latter aspect becomes evident when it is said that in all rules of conduct we should always go back to the biblical foundation or principle. In and of itself, that phrase is true. But the question at this point is whether we allow the Bible to minimize our behaviour or whether this Bible teaches us in various things — even when they are not directly mentioned in the Bible — to think through the issues together and to live up to them.

A Discussion←⤒🔗

For the “Educational Congress 1981”, organized by GVOLK-LVGS, I had the opportunity to address the assembled Reformed educators on the topic of “The Christian Character of a Reformed School”. In that context, among other things, it was discussed how important it is that people who bear responsibility for others are also prepared to “translate” (or transpose) this responsibility into appropriate and modern guidelines for conduct and morals.

K. Mulder reacted to this in an article in Woord en School (14 (1982) 62-64) entitled “Christian Life in a Reformed School (some thoughts following the 1981 Educational Congress)”. Mulder states that as Reformed people we have developed a common behaviour with regard to new phenomena for which “on the basis of the Bible clear rules can be given” (such as rejecting the use of drugs, the disapproval of abortion and euthanasia, the disapproval of unmarried cohabitation, artificial insemination with donor sperm). However, such a shared and common opinion was not developed when it concerned other new phenomena, for which “on the basis of the Bible no immediate clear rules can be given” (such as the use of television, the opportunities in regard to recreation and holidays, the reading of modern literature, the proper economical use of raw materials and energy, listening to modern music). The decisive factor, according to Mulder, is whether one kind of conduct “is to be regarded as the biblically required conduct”. That is why he does not lament the fact that we do not have standard rules of conduct about such things such as how to use our free time, drinking a beer at a class evening or birthday party, Sunday observance, etc. He writes, “That is not a bad thing after all, because where the Bible does not give us a detailed rule, we don’t have the right to commit each other to such rules.”

It will prove useful, as a result of this dissenting voice, to reflect further on the subject that is under discussion here. What is important here is the ability to make proper distinctions. The discussion may help to refine these distinctions, which is in everyone’s interest.

An Explicit Command — he Final Word?←⤒🔗

When we are speaking of the Christian lifestyle it is certainly true that a precise distinction needs to be made between the express commandments of the LORD and the derived commands and rules (the Christian morals). As such, in the exercise of church discipline, the express commandments will always be binding. This is also expressed in the fact that with the accepted disciplinary (or “excommunication”) forms mention is made of the command against which someone has sinned. For instance, the consistory of the church will only discipline someone for deviating from the Sabbath rule when it can be made clear that this Sunday observance is an outright desecration of the Sabbath as the day of the LORD. The church binds the members to the fourth commandment, and not by the rule whether one should leave bicycles and cars alone as much as possible on Sundays. But when the church does not bind the members to the latter rule, this does not mean that it cannot be a topic of conversation, even on home visits. Our thinking would be seriously hampered when, out of fear of a suprascriptural binding, we would no longer dare to speak at all about the benefit or the harm of matters that are not specifically mentioned in these commandments — although they are nonetheless connected with them.

Mulder mentions as an example the situation that a school board must (be able to) give binding rules for the conduct at a class evening. He immediately adds that from the presence of such rules it must be clear that it is not about “this is how each reformed person should conduct himself”, but simply spell out certain agreements or expectations for an orderly course. Mulder rightly points out that there is a distinction between an explicit commandment of the LORD and an instituted set of rules by a school board. However, we do believe that he does exaggerate the gap between biblically required behaviour and Christian agreements. At the moment that a school board sets rules for a class evening, the school board is guided by the biblical principles! Because of the work assignment for the next day, the agreement arises not to use the night for such class evenings. Because of the requirement of holy living, the evening must not be organized in a bad environment. Because of the biblical requirement for sobriety and dignity, no or only very little alcoholic drinks should be served. Because of the biblical requirement for Christian conduct at all times, and because of the biblical warning about the sinful inclination of everyone’s heart, it is good that an adult would be present to help keep everything in good order. Surely all of these principles are mandatory for everyone? And everyone will have to honour these principles if they do not just want to pay lip service to the biblical commandment and in the meantime not live according to it. Certainly, there are practical variations that are possible in how the rules are applied. Some may prefer to abolish all class evenings; others will plead for the presence of parents, and still others will have a teacher to be present. The practical application will differ and choices must be made here, but always within shared general and biblical principles. No school administration will impose the rule that on class evenings only poetry can be recited, or that one can only appear there dressed up in black. And why are such rules dispensed with? It is not because the activities of the evening or the dress of the students would fall outside the scope of God’s Word, but because such interpretations no longer have any real connection with God’s Word and the concrete goal at hand.

The express commandment of the LORD has the final word when it comes to being bound to his revealed will, but it is certainly not the last word we need to say when we are speaking of a dignified lifestyle: the express commandment is then for us the first and decisive word that obliges us to consider what it means for us in the twentieth century.

A Derived Commandment: An Extra-Biblical Agreement?←⤒🔗

The distinction between an explicit commandment and a derived rule is important, but one may not tear these two apart as if only the first category would reflect God’s revelation while the second would merely represent a matter of relatively arbitrary arrangement and group agreement. Separating these two in this way does not do justice to the character of the Bible. For Scripture itself engages human beings, parents and pastors, in guiding our behaviour.

The Bible does not contain exhaustive legislation. In many respects it is illustrative and teaches us a style that we are to maintain even where no explicit commandment is available to us.

That is why Scripture appeals to our own thinking, directed by the Spirit, within the community of the saints: “Whatever is true, whatever is honourable...think about these things; what you have learned and received...put it into practice” (Phil. 4:8-9). What we have heard from God was given to us as material to apply ourselves. Such application is therefore also an extension of God’s revelation. It does not come with the weight of the authority of revelation (binding), but it certainly is demanded by that revelation. We do not live by the letter of the law, however the letter does teach us to live by the Spirit and therefore as one body.

With these two verbs, ”to think about” and “to put into practice”, the Bible gives the lead to parents and those who provide leadership. God appoints the counsel of the parents for the benefit of the children. We cannot say: “The basic rules for life, as expressed by my parents, were only agreements within the family because there had to be some order, and for the rest of my life I don’t have to worry about that anymore. Now I can simply go back to biblically-required behaviour”. Such speaking would be diametrically opposed to what Scripture tells us. It says it like this: “My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. Bind them on your heart always; tie them around your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the evil woman, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress” (Prov. 6:20-24). The book of Proverbs is one lengthy illustration of the wise application of the commandments God had given in the law. Its purpose is: the protection of the youth of the church. For this protection to be effective, the parents mentioned by Solomon cannot afford the “personal” luxury of giving advice and counsel to each one individually and separately from other parents.

Precisely because the Bible itself does not contain the details for life in the twentieth century and because the Holy Spirit wants to give us practical wisdom in the communion of the saints, parents and elders, men and women, are called upon to point out the direction, to give an example and to train everyone in good works (see Titus 2:2-7). This implies, therefore, that rules from parents or school leaders do not always coincide with a “detailed rule of conduct from the Bible”. In the Bible we are dealing with the revelation given by God. All wisdom originates with him. Upon their intercessions, he turns sinners into Spiritual people who develop a sensibility to what is appropriate in serving Christ. And through his church he gives these people to each other: parents to their children, the elderly to the younger ones. We cannot and may not minimize this reality of wisdom from the Spirit through biblicism. The quick conclusion of “but it isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible”) does not excuse young people when they act unwisely by living carelessly and disregarding the advice and guidance from elders and earlier generations under the pretence of their “personal responsibility”.

It is clear that it is precisely in listening to parents and leaders and in observing the wisdom and morals of previous generations that our true personal responsibility is not eliminated. Then it is not isolated but rather it is intensified. Someone who eliminates personal responsibility becomes a traditionalist and a legalist. But those who take on such personal responsibility are not turning into harsh judges of their parents and teachers. They learn to live in the community in order to shape their own walk of life in the community together with the other believers. Each one individually will direct his or her walk of life, but not a conduct that is haughty and self-centered when the Bible does not have an explicit command for a given situation.

A Reformed Morality, Unless...←⤒🔗

In a time when one is quickly tempted to say: “Reformed morals only where the Bible speaks expressly”, we think it is better to formulate it as follows: “Reformed morals? Yes — unless the Bible explicitly opposes it”. In this way there remains room for the work and responsibility of pastors, parents and leaders. In this way there is room left to work on a shared responsibility for all and then also worked out in a personal way.

Some like to appeal to the words from Romans 14, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” (v. 4), and “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (v. 5) and “Each one of us will have to give an account of himself to God” (v. 12). These verses show the importance of personal responsibility. That this is not about individualistic responsibility, however, is also evident from Romans 14. We cannot now go into the very specific situation in which Paul wrote this chapter. However, even without having been informed about it, it is clear that one can never withdraw into a bastion of one’s own “christian freedom” with a few slogans from this chapter. After all, Paul also writes in the same context the following statements: “No one lives for himself” (v. 7); “Decide to never put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (v. 13); “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding” (v. 19).

These assignments are intended to prevent us from speaking in such a way about our “personal responsibility” and “Christian freedom” that we end up losing sight of the community — including the weaker ones — for whom Christ has died, by our determination of a lifestyle or by neglecting a shared morality. The prayer of the apostle in Romans 15:5-6 applies also to our moral living in the twentieth century: “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”