Reviews
ON HUMAN WORTH
Duncan B Forrester
SCM Press Ltd, 2001, x +307pp
£17.95
‘In order to believe in human equality it
is necessary to believe in God.’ These words of R.H. Tawney underpin and, to
some extent, encapsulate the thesis of Duncan Forrester’s fascinating and
rewarding discussion of equality and human worth. His resolve to identify and explore the key theological issues associated with human
worth is well worked out in a book which is clearly structured, highly
readable, informative, and passsionate.
In the first two chapters of the book,
which compose Part One, the author surveys the ‘meanings’ of equality and
discusses a range of contemporary non-Christian positions. Complex and subtle
material is presented clearly and with a light touch. Part Two is entitled, ‘The Christian Shape of
Equality’ and is made up of chapters presenting the main biblical teachings
which relate to equality, giving an overview of Christian thought on the
subject across the centuries and introducing the work of Tawney, Kierkgaard,
liberation theologians and modern Roman Catholic social teaching.
Building on the first two thirds of the
book, Part Three addresses ‘Fruits of Equality: Practices and Policies’ and
devotes a chapter each to the response of Christian individuals, of the Church
and of society (although this third chapter focuses in large measure upon the ‘politics of inclusion’). This part of
the book is, perhaps the weakest, combining as it does a certain amount of
hand-wringing description with a fundamentally statist approach to policy
formation.
It is a revealing statement on p.72 in
which Forrester commends a theology which is ‘rooted in the real world and its
issues and its suffering. It cares for people more than for intellectual
coherence, or literary elegance, or academic respectability’. Of course. The
‘crucial step from academic detachment to fellow-feeling’ (p.17) must indeed be
taken. But to write a book of this sort, with its endeavour to persuade its
readers that one understanding of ‘human worth’ (and the attitudes, policies
and behaviours which flow from it) is superior to other understandings, surely
presupposes the conviction that what is not intellectually coherent will
undermine and otherwise harm the very people for whom ‘theology’ cares. It is for this reason that Forrester’s
failure to engage with the detailed arguments of those holding other
understandings of equality and worth to some extent works against the
compassionate concern for the poor and disadvantaged which so evidently and
winsomely characterizes the spirit of the book.
To be sure, Robert Nozick, F.A. Hayek, and P.T. Bauer are all mentioned
but it cannot be said that their arguments against a certain sort of
egalitarianism and the public policy which it produces have been thoroughly
described or dealt with. And it is surprising that the work of authors so
significant and diverse as John Milbank, Helmut Schoeck, Herbert Schlossberg,
Antony Flew, Ludwig von Mises or Thomas Sowell receive not so much as a
mention.
The reader encounters an example of the
weakness that this introduces into Forrester’s argument almost at the very
beginning of the book. He asserts that ‘the very act of giving underscores the
inequality between us’ (p.3) as though this were necessarily a bad thing, a
position which sits ill with a theology of the grace of God. Later in the book,
happily, the author tells us that ‘Legalistic and imposed egalitarianism can do
much damage; far better is what one might call the egalitarianism of grace.’
(p.170). This in contrast to his
argument in the Prologue that, ‘Personal initiatives are hopelessly inadequate
to the scale and complexity of the problem. It would be better if some of my
resources should be rechannelled anonymously through the taxation system … That
would be both less patronizing and more likely to have positive results than
impulsive individual giving.’ (pp4-5)
This not only ignores the way in which the management of ‘resources
rechannelled anonymously through the taxation system’ is vicious, inefficient
and (as Forrester implies) impersonal and has proven far more ‘hopelessly inadequate’ than the
alternatives, it also fails to take into account the very many alternatives
that there are.
Thus, Human
Worth, is a well-informed treatment of a vital issue which both introduces
theological distinctions and raises personal questions with lucidity and
passion. However, it fails to take into account some important political-philosophical
critiques of egalitarianism and as a result makes practical and public policy
recommendations which are generous-hearted but weak-minded. Two parts good; one
part bad.