Richard Holloway (gebore in 1933) het in 1986 die Biskop van Edinburgh geword en is in 1992 ook tot Primus van die Scottish Episcopal Church verkies. In 2000 het hy uit albei hierdie poste bedank vanweë sy toenemende ongewildheid in kerklike kringe. Deesdae is hy as 'n agnostikus en 'n "after-religionist" bekend. Teoloë wat in dieselfde rigting beweeg, is Don Cupitt (SêNet 7.06.2011), John Selby Spong (SêNet 8.06.2011) en Julian Müller (SêNet 3.06.2011). Holloway is getroud en het drie kinders. Hy het meer as twintig boeke gepubliseer. Ek het drie van hulle gelees en gaan hulle agtereenvolgend en kronologies bespreek.
Wat in sy tekste opval, is Holloway se heldere denke, sy eerlikheid en sy duidelike, sobere skryfstyl. Hy wek, in groter mate as die meeste teoloë, die indruk van rasionaliteit. As 'n mens Holloway se skryfwerk krities betrag, blyk dit 'n mengsel van rasionaliteit en naïwiteit te wees. Party dinge het hy deeglik ondersoek voordat hy standpunt ingeneem het, maar in ander gevalle het hy bloot aanvaar wat algemeen gangbaar is in die kringe waarin hy beweeg en daarop voortborduur.
Die eerste boek is Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1999/2004, 163p). "As the title suggests, the book had two aims. I set out to argue against the claim that, without religion, people would soon give up on ethics; that without God there could be no human goodness. And I sketched an outline of what a purely secular or godless ethic would look like." Dit is die outeur se eie opsomming, wat hy aan die begin van een van sy latere boeke verstrek (die boek wat ek na hierdie een gaan bespreek). Dit is hierdie 1999-boek wat Holloway in groot mate verplig het om in 2000 uit sy kerklike ampte te bedank.
Hier verwerp Holloway nog nie alle religieuse begronding nie. Hy verwerp meesal net die nodigheid van god- of religie-gebaseerde gedragsnorme. 'n Mens kan goed wees sonder God. Omdat God se bestaan nie deur almal aanvaar word nie en niemand kan bewys dat God bestaan nie én dit noodsaaklik is dat ons 'n grondslag vir etiek moet vind, is al uitweg dat ons ons moraliteit rasioneel grondves. Ons moet empiriese (dus hierdie wêreldse), menslike redes vind waarom 'n daad goed of sleg, reg of verkeerd, is. Die wortel van die hemel vir goeie gedrag en die stok van die hel vir slegte gedrag word uitgeskakel. "Today, most of us do not believe in eternal punishment for temporal mistakes" (p 17).
Sonde moet ook nie 'n rol speel nie: "The concept of sin essentially works on the basis of obedience rather than consent, blindly following what is commanded, rather than co-operating with an end that is understood and voluntarily accepted" (p 5). "The idea of sin itself was part of a mechanism of force designed to secure compliance to authority" (p 9). Holloway se ongeloof (of ten minste skeptisisme) blyk uit 'n opmerking soos die volgende: "The fact that an injunction comes with a divine label attached is no guarantee of divine origin" (p 9). "Saying that an act is wrong, because it is forbidden by God, is not sufficient unless we can also justify it on moral grounds" (p 15).
Met die volgende opmerking gee hy moontlik nog meer aanstoot aan gelowiges: "One theory of the death of Jesus clearly gets its emotional power from half-forgotten echoes of the ancient practice of human sacrifice ... Our salvation or rescue from the anger of God is purchased by the death of Jesus, God's own son" (p 9). In 'n gesekulariseerde (of verwêreldlikte), ontwikkelde samelewing word sulke leerstellings al hoe minder geglo. "Beliefs are powerful as long as they are believed" (p 11). "Traditions really only work when they are legitimated by widespread consent" (p 29). Die oortuigingskrag van religieuse geloof word in ons tyd al hoe meer verdun. Een (desperate) teenreaksie is "full-frontal fundamentalism. The power of all fundamentalisms lies in their persuasive effect, not in their truthfulness" (p 11).
"Religious moral systems operate on the basis of fear ... but the most effective systems will generally operate on the basis of consent, not coercion; voluntary acceptance, not imposed obedience" (p 17). Omdat sodanige instemming oor alle gedragsake deur almal nie moontlik is nie, moet, anders as voorheen in homogeen christelike samelewings, ruimte vir ten minste 'n mate van meningsverskil, dus vir pluralisme, gelaat word.
"This is why the use of God in moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless ... it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate ... We have to offer sensible approaches ... This book is ... a human-centred justification for a particular moral approach. It is a morality without God" (p 19-20). Die sinvolle benadering wat hy bepleit, beteken onder andere dat gedragsnorme in ons huidige omstandighede sin moet maak. "Ancient codes ... are now entirely divorced from the context that gave them their original meaning" (p 28). "Today, authority has to earn respect by the intrinsic value of what it says" (p 31).
Só verduidelik Holloway sy uitgangspunt in die inleiding. Hierna volg ses hoofstukke en 'n nawoord wat ek baie oorsigtelik sal weergee. Hy aanvaar dat die mens se bewussyn ewolusionêr ontwikkel het. Hierdie ontwikkelde bewussyn stel ons, anders as diere, in staat om vryelik gedragskeuses uit te oefen. As ons (behoorlik) besin, kan ons (meesal) die gevolge van ons dade voorsien. "We must do what we can to construct moral agreements that will have the authority of our reason and the discipline of our consent" (p 31). Moraliteit word dus suiwer aards (en nie bonatuurlik nie) deur mense bepaal.
In werklikheid was dit nog altyd so: "Moral traditions are human creations" (p 31). Met verwysing na "some ancient moral traditions", bv die veroordeling van moord, skryf Holloway: "It is their ethical appropriateness that gives them authority, not their divine warrant" (p 71). "We should not shirk the task of rethinking the authority of the Bible over our lives, allowing the living scripture of our own experience to challenge the dead letter of the written law. We have always done this with written scripture, though rarely with complete candour. We have always found ways to get round the obvious meaning of a text when it no longer conforms to our own understanding of value and truth" (p 80). Dink bv aan wat in die Bybel oor slawerny staan.
"The creation of morality is our business, it is something we have to do for our own sake if we are to live sanely and with care for one another and the good of society" (p 32). Wat nodig is, is "demythologising previous moral traditions" en die "construction of new traditions" (p 33). "No educated, rational human being can believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures" (p 46). Nog minder dat "simply by being born, human beings inherit a sinful, fallen nature" (p 46).
Die vrou word as die primêre oorsaak in die sondeval uitgebeeld. Hierdie voorstelling het gelei tot baie eeue waarin vroue nie tot hulle reg gekom het nie. Seks is ook verkeerdelik voorgestel as "the means whereby sin entered human nature ... The early Christian interpretation of the Adam and Eve myth associated sex with sin, because it was through their original disobedience that sin had entered the world ... This was the beginning of a complicated nexus that rendered sex itself intrinsically sinful, women as the lure to that sin, and their subjection the consequence" (p 58).
In sy boeke bepleit Holloway herhaaldelik 'n natuurliker en meer onbevange benadering tot seks, gelyke regte vir vroue (bv geboortebeperking, aborsie, kunsmatige bevrugting, surrogaatmoederskap, proefhuwelike, egskeiding, genadedood) en die aanvaarding van gays en lesbiërs. "What might have been right for Paul's day is wrong for ours" (p 70). Holloway gaan selfs verder met sy kritiek op Paulus: "We are no longer likely to make much of his expectation of the imminent return of Jesus" (p 84).
"We describe our society as post-traditional because we no longer offer unquestioning obedience to any institution or set of attitudes and approaches simply because it has been around for a long time" (p 88). Wat Holloway probeer aanbied, is 'n "new, lightweight moral tradition" gebaseer op "the consent of our reason and emotion" (p 156). Die pluralisme in hedendaagse moraliteit bring noodwendig 'n mate van relativering mee, "but that does not mean that anything goes" (p 159).
Volgende keer skryf ek oor 'n ander Holloway-boek.
Johannes Comestor