As Christians, we are called to think about the fundamental values that shape and guide our economic behavior and the economic structures of our society. This article focuses on the ways in which the problem of predatory lending, or usury, allows us to examine our most basic Christian values and principles and think about how they might serve as a moral foundation for reshaping our economic structures and transactions.

Journal of Religious Ethics, Volume 49, Issue 2, Page 290-313, June 2021.

The phenomenon of globalization is widely recognized as the dominant rubric for describing life in the twenty-first century, yet fierce debates are currently being waged over its definition and beneficence to society. This essay offers a typology of four competing globalization theories— neoliberal, development, earthist, and postcolonial—that currently dominate globalization discourses and briefly sketches the constituencies, ideological underpinnings, and moral vision of each as background. It then critiques these theories using a set of normative criteria offered by the author. These (...) criteria are framed to answer the question "What constitutes the good life?" and are rooted in a feminist, Christian ethical analysis of globalization. They delineate a democratized understanding of power as the context of moral agency, define humanity's purpose as caring for the planet, and establish that human flourishing is evidenced by the social well-being of people. The paper concludes by suggesting some pathways of transformation that build on these criteria. (shrink)

THE CREATION OF FAMILY-FRIENDLY DEPARTMENTS IS A JUSTICE ISSUE affecting primary caregivers and their dependents as well as the academic profession as a whole. This essay asks: "How do conflicts between work and family care affect the profession, the Society of Christian Ethics, and ultimately scholarship in ethics?".

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation by Charles C. CamosyRebecca Todd PetersBeyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation Charles C. Camosy Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. 207Pp. $22.00As the title Beyond the Abortion Wars suggests, Camosy seeks a new way to address abortion in the United States that moves past the binary divisions of “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Based on (...) his read of shifting public opinion, demographics, and interpretations of constitutional law, Camosy bypasses the question of whether our national abortion policy will change (he thinks it will) in order to focus on the question of what the new public policy ought to be (3).Camosy, a Catholic theologian, acknowledges early on that the argument he is putting forth is consistent with defined Catholic doctrine (6). Placing him solidly in the “pro-life” camp, many of the positions he seeks to defend and promote (life begins at conception, women are coerced into abortion, abortion is “tragic,” and most women seek abortion for “convenience”) are hardly new. In fact, his whole framing of the argument falls in line with the increasingly strident “pro-life” approach to abortion, which argues that abortion “hurts” women (112). This strategy developed in the 1990s after the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision opened up the possibility for state regulation of abortion and is the predominant rationale behind the recent spate of state regulations following the 2010 midterm elections that swept Republicans into state houses across the country (288 regulations between 2010–15 compared to 292 between 1995–2010). Camosy’s most controversial claim for the pro-life side is likely to be that the use of “indirect abortion” is morally acceptable for “proportionately serious reason(s),” which he identifies as rape and saving the life of the pregnant woman (83). The bill he proposes, the Mother and Prenatal Child Protection Act, allows for “indirect abortion” after a three-day waiting period and with submission of a signed affidavit claiming that the pregnancy is the result of nonconsensual sex. But it also establishes “equal protection of the law for prenatal children” and criminalizes abortion under most circumstances.It is unlikely that many on the pro-choice side will see these concessions as acceptable compromises. It’s a shame that Camosy seeks such an unlikely compromise rather than developing a common ground legislative proposal incorporating the many long-term feminist goals that are actually included in his bill: equal pay for equal work; addressing discrimination against parents (especially women), pregnant women, and new mothers; protection against domestic [End Page 210] violence; parental leave; universal prekindergarten and subsidized child care; and increased measures to collect child support, among others. These could serve as a basis for important legislation that would support pregnant women and their families and might indeed create circumstances in which some would decide to continue their pregnancies. Tellingly, his legislation completely ignores comprehensive sex education and free and unhindered access to all forms of contraception—the two strategies that have historically proven most effective in reducing abortion rates.As a Christian ethicist who is also working on the issue of abortion, I can appreciate that Camosy’s work is informed by his own beliefs and commitments on this issue. I share his desire to find a way forward on the issue of abortion and move beyond the abortion wars. However, I was unsatisfied with Camosy’s paternalistic approach to the issue of abortion and the women who terminate their pregnancies. His repeated assertions that women are coerced into abortion do not reflect the majority of social-scientific studies on the issue; his belief that criminalizing abortion would function to teach people (including these coerced women) that abortion is morally wrong is positively patriarchal; and his judgmental accusation that most women seek abortions for reasons of convenience betrays a deep disregard for women’s safety, economic well-being, and concern for their families, not to mention their health. We clearly have very different definitions of convenience.Rebecca Todd PetersElon UniversityCopyright © 2016 The Society of Christian Ethics... (shrink)