- It's a pleasure to welcome all of you
who are watching this panel presentation,
dealing with life
and death decisions during
the COVID-19 crisis.
This crisis which has turned
all of our lives upside down,
has actually generated
two different crises.
The first crisis
which we all know very
well is the health crisis.
And we know it because
of the mounting number
of deaths in our world.
I have a ritual of looking every morning
at "The New York Times"
and tracking these.
There have now been more than
5 million documented cases
of COVID-19 and over 325,000 deaths.
In the US there have
been 1.5 million cases
and more than 92,000 deaths.
And just in the little
state of Connecticut
with its small population
of three and a half million,
there have been more than
38,000 cases and 3,500 deaths.
And if you wanna be local
which I check every morning,
looking at New Haven County
where all of us reside,
we've had over 10,500 cases
and over 850 deaths, the toll
has just been devastating.
And in order to try to keep
this down, we're all very aware
that the governors of all of our states,
have ordered shelter
in place requirements.
And it has effectively
shut our movement down,
that our movements around down
but it's also created an economic crisis
which is the second crisis.
Well over 30 million people
have filed unemployment claims.
Major companies have shut down
and filed for bankruptcies,
every budget has changed including Yale's.
Now all 50 states are beginning to reopen
and on Wednesday, May 20th,
the last of those states, Connecticut,
one of the very last started to reopen.
But all of that has posed huge challenges
and issues for governors,
for business owners
and for individuals.
One of the things that has been lacking,
sorely lacking in my judgment
has been moral leadership.
And I say that from the
very highest levels,
in American society, we have lacked that.
We as Divinity School
thought it might be useful
to gather four of our most
outstanding faculty members
and ask them to address some of the issues
that individuals are wrestling
with during this crisis.
Our four panelists are John Hare
who is a specialist in
Philosophical Theology.
He's well known for several
of his works on ethics,
"The Moral Gap", "God and Morality".
What may not be best known about him is
that he worked for a year on
the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the US House of Representatives
in 1982 through 1983.
So he not only brings
a scholar's perspective
but he understands Washington DC.
Jennifer Herdt who is a
specialist in ethics is best known
for her work in virtue
ethics, including a book
that I think should have always
won the best title award,
"Putting On Virtue: The
Legacy of the Splendid Vices"
and much more recently, "Forming Humanity"
which is an attempt to look
at how we think about the
way in which we are formed
as human beings globally.
Our third panelist is
Professor Willie Jennings
who is a Specialist in
Theology and Africana Studies.
He is best known for his book,
"The Christian Imagination:
Theology and the Origins of Race",
published in 2010 that won two
of the most important award
in theology in North America,
including the most
prestigious award in theology.
And he's now working on a sequel entitled,
"Unfolding the World".
And last, but by no means
least, is Katherine Tanner
who is a specialist in Systematic Theology
who is best known for her work,
"God and Creation in Christian Theology"
which is about ready to go
into its third reprinting
and her most recent book,
"Christianity and the
Spirit of Capitalism".
So we're very pleased
that all four have agreed
to spend some of their time
and lend their expertise to us.
The format of this panel
would be very simple.
I'm going to pose four questions initially
that we have generated
internally within Yale
and ask one of the panelists
to address (mumbles)
and let other panelists
weigh in as they see fit.
And then we're going to turn
to a series of questions
that potential viewers
who I hope are now real
viewers have sent into us
and pose them to our panelists.
So let's get started.
The first question is the question
that is foremost in I think
everybody's mind at this moment,
and that is that we are trying
to weigh the pros and cons
of reopening our society.
And this goes from the governor's
levels all the way down
to business owners and individuals.
On the one hand, were keenly aware
that there are huge
risks in letting people,
go back into society.
But on the other hand, the closure of
so many businesses is now threatening
to create an economic crisis
that could imperil the
welfare of many people.
So the question is,
what ethical principles
can help us think about
how we weigh health issues
over against these economic
which also have health
implications issues?
I'm gonna start by asking Kathy Tanner
who had just written a book on,
Christianity and the spirit
of the new capitalism
to begin with an answer.
So Kathy, how would you respond?
- Well, thanks, Greg.
I mean, I think it's
important to take a bit
of a different angle on this question
and look behind trade
offs between the economy
and public health in which we seem forced
to weigh one against the other.
Just the sense that if
we open up the economy,
more people will die.
There might be false trade offs here
because for example, the
government could employ
or just subsidize the employment
of large numbers of currently
unemployed people in jobs
that would further public health testing,
contact tracing, care provision.
All this indeed could be part
of a federal jobs guarantee
that would be quite
economically beneficial,
while promoting public health.
On the other hand, if
people aren't feeling safe,
if they feel like they're
putting their lives
at risk they're unlikely
to engage in their usual
economic activities,
if they can help it.
So efforts to ensure public
health and safety are necessary
to ensure economic vitality,
whether businesses are open or not.
I think we have trouble seeing
these things as anything
but a pause because of the
nature of our healthcare system
and the nature of our economic system.
When we're asked what has to give,
the economy or health security?
We're envisioning a scenario
without a robust safety net
where large numbers
of people remain without health insurance,
without adequate access to health care
where they're denied paid
sick leave and so on.
And we're presuming an
economy that's already willing
to sacrifice human wellbeing
to the engines of profit.
The disproportionately high death rates,
from COVID-19 among low wage workers,
food provision, transport,
healthcare, et Cetera make
that clear working conditions are unsafe,
workers aren't paid
enough to live in anything
but cramped and overcrowded housing.
They can't afford to stay home
when they're sick and so on.
So before we start weighing
up the respective risks,
I think we need to ask some
bigger structural questions.
How might things be fundamentally changed
to avoid such trade offs?
I think raising such structural
questions is necessary,
if we're to act towards one another,
in the way God acts towards us
as our creator and redeemer.
God doesn't intend our lives
to be organized as zero-sum game
and we need to do whatever
we can to avoid them.
- Okay, thank you.
Anyone else like to weigh
in on this question?
I'm gonna just ask this,
Kathy, do you think
so we've had, I think
around 36 million claims
for unemployment and over
20 million jobs they say
that have been lost as a result of this.
Would there be that scale,
could the government work
to this scale to help
or would it require other means as well?
- Yeah, that's a good question.
I mean, there are other
things that government can,
I'm not saying
that government is the sole
solution here in any case
but there are certainly things
that government can do aside
from the kind of jobs provision
that I was talking about
that would directly further public health.
There are a number of
things that could be done
to keep people on the payroll.
I mean, some of that is being enacted
but there are a number
of other initiatives
within European context
that seem to be working fairly well.
But it involves the
redirection of resources
to ensure worker employment
rather than the profitability
of corporations necessarily.
- All right.
- What Kathy just added was what I wanted
to indicate as well.
That there's really
quite a different model
that's been taken in most of Europe
that's been really aimed at making sure
that people stayed employed,
supporting businesses
to keep them employed.
And there's some indication
that we may be moving in that direction
with some of the new assistance
that's being designed now.
So that I think would be a good thing.
- Put people employed rather
than focusing on (mumbles).
- Absolutely, much more
continuity in their lives.
And then the other thing
that I would just add
to that is businesses
clearly should not open,
unless they can provide,
something like safe working conditions.
But obviously we as a society
have to be providing them
with what they need in order
to provide those safe working conditions.
So it can't be a burden that's
placed solely on the employer
to be able to create that.
- Okay, thank you very much.
So another issue which
brings us down to much more
of a personal level will
be some of the tensions
that will arise between people
who have had COVID-19 are
in a very low risk group,
versus individuals in a high risk group
or those who have not had COVID-19.
And the kind of circumstance
that will arise is someone
who's been laid off and
not contracted COVID-19
because they followed the advice
and respected shelter in place
orders of their own governor.
And another person who
maybe just had bad luck
or maybe was not careful
but could be just bad
luck has had COVID-19.
And now jobs begin to open up
and for some positions they
are willing to take people
who either are in low risk groups
or have immunities built
up within their system
because they've already
gone through COVID-19.
How do we address and how can
we think about the ways in
which we can help people
navigate the kinds of tensions
that will arise?
And this is not hypothetical,
there was an article in "The
New York Times" this morning,
about a woman and her son in New Jersey
who were wearing COVID-19
survivor T-shirts
and had taken them away and put them up
because they've gotten so much
grief from their neighbors.
So it's a real situation.
John, what advice would
you have for this woman?
What advice would you have for
other people on both sides?
It is the people who are the survivors
and the people who have not had COVID-19
or are in high risk group.
- I think this question is
going to be moot (mumbles).
So we're really in the meanwhile,
how should we deal with
what I'm gonna call
vulnerability-based replacement hiring.
What norms to govern that?
And I have a suggestion.
I think there should be a
mandatory sunset provision,
on vulnerability-based replacement
hiring until the vaccine
so that no hiring should be done
of this replacement kind except
under this sunset provision.
That it will only be
until we get the vaccine
and then the job should
be opened up again.
So that's a practical
suggestion for legislation.
What are the principles here behind this?
If somebody is at no fault
but has a temporary
interruption of competence,
which is what happens when
somebody who's old like me,
or somebody like my wife
who is immunocompromised,
till the vaccine,
we have a temporary
interruption of competence.
And I think that at a place like Yale,
if somebody's child dies
and they can't teach any
longer, we're generous to them.
We say, "We'll look after
you for six months."
But a lot of the economy is not like that
and there's no expectation
of a long term relationship
and there's no mutual
accountability between the worker
and the employer.
And I think the principle here is
that human beings have
dignity and not price.
Dignity meaning incommensurable worth,
you can't put a price on a human life.
And dignity requires
respect and respect requires
that we have this kind
of mutual accountability
to each other.
The way worker to the employer
and the employer to the worker.
And I think that for large parts
of our economy we don't have that.
If we did have that, we
would be offering this kind
of sunset provision to our workers
so that if for short time
until the vaccine is in place,
they can't do the work,
they'll know it's only
for the short time
and then the job will
be reopened for them.
- Now that's a very
interesting suggestion.
I personally like it very much.
Anyone else wanna weigh in on this?
I think that the struggle is
also the emotional struggle
that people will have with one another
and I think your proposal
is a very sound proposal
but I think the rub will come in terms
of personal relationships
and people letting
to some degree jealousy
and their own emotions rule
how they react (mumbles).
- That's why we have law.
So the suggestion is
a mandatory provision.
- Well, it's also seems
to me just critical
that we're providing support to the people
who cannot work right now.
And if that support is there,
then there will be a stronger
sense of social solidarity.
We're in this together, some
of us can be out there working
and others can be at home
and also creative ways
of providing forms of work
that can take place safely.
Just being creative with that.
So a public works program
that envisions a huge number
of workers who are sitting
at home doing these things.
- So we return to FDR
and think about how to do that
only very different ways now
where we have to think
about the health and safety
of each person (mumbles) good suggestions.
- Yeah, if I can just emphasize
that I think it's crucial
that individuals not be
pitted against individuals
but that there'd be some
sort of robust safety net
of various forms that will
enable people not simply
to be left out in the cold
when they're unemployed
for a variety of reasons.
- I think the challenging
group here will be the people
who are in the service industries
or who do manual labor.
Some of that can be done
with safety construction,
I think highway projects
and I mentioned FDR
but I'm thinking that these large projects
which need to be done,
this is a great time
to try to get people doing them,
especially when we have much less traffic.
And the demands on the system
are less in terms of the roads
and public interactions
with some of these in you.
Alright, let's go to a different question
and this is a question I
have been personally asked.
So just passing this on,
there have been a good number
of couples, especially
older couples who have died
or families who've had multiple members
of their immediate family
come down with COVID-19.
And one of the questions that arises
or has arisen is, do you tell
someone who is still alive
that their spouse or partner
of 50, 55 years has died from COVID-19,
when they are fighting for their own life?
Or do you tell a child
that their parent has died,
when the child is on a
ventilator herself or himself?
How can you provide some help
to people wrestling with,
what do we say to our own
family members in order
to tell them what's happening
without hastening the death
of that individual whom we also love?
Jennifer, you're trained as an ethicist,
this one comes to you.
- Well, I mean, first off,
I think we certainly want
to affirm the critical
importance of truth telling.
Telling others the truth
expresses our respect for them.
It gives them what they need in order
to live their lives
truthfully themselves, right?
That they're not living a lie in some way
and it's critical for trust.
Trust is undermined when
the truth is not told.
But I would add to that that
this is a pastoral issue.
There are different ways
of telling the truth
and there are times and places
for different kinds of truth telling.
And if someone is fighting
for every breath they take
and the hope of seeing their spouse is
what's keeping them going, I
do not think that is the moment
to tell them that their
spouse has not made it.
I certainly don't think
that one should offer
that if it's not being
directly asked by the person,
that one could wait for some other time
to deliver that difficult truth.
That moment they're fighting for breath
and they should be able to
focus their energies on that.
I think if the if the person survives,
there would come a time when one ought
to tell them this difficult reality.
And there is a lot of reflection
that goes into finding the
right moment to share that
and this is where we're grateful
for the practical wisdom
of clergy people and chaplains
who gain the wisdom and the
experience of being with people
who are going through suffering
and of learning how compassionately
to tell these difficult truths.
- One of the things that has made this
so complicated is that members
of the family have oftentimes
not been allowed to go in
and see their parent or their child
or their brother or sister.
And the only way they could
communicate would be by phone
or FaceTime or some way like that
and I think people have
been more reluctant
because it seems so impersonal.
And it's very different than
if you're standing there,
especially even if you
could get into the room.
It's not like you can take
their hand and hold their hand
and tell them if they have COVID-19.
So I mean, that's a peculiarity,
any reaction to those dynamics
of the situation we face?
- Greg, I've been talking
to a few pastors and priests
and rabbis in these past few months.
And they're dealing with that
in terms of their congregants
but they're also dealing
with that in terms
of their own sense of
guilt of not being able
to be either with the
person dying in the hospital
or with the family members.
And it's a moment in
which they cannot deploy
their own sense of touch
to be with people.
And it makes it even more
painful because now they have
to imagine how one does
ministry when you can't touch,
either those who are dying
or those who are in mourning of the dying.
And so it makes it an incredible
challenge to help them.
My word to many of them is,
first is to say to them,
let's see if we can do something
about the guilt you feel
as a minister who cannot touch people
at the moment when you feel like you ought
to be able to touch them.
And then let's extend that sense of grace
to those who can't be with
their loved ones at this moment
and trust in the fact that
there is a reality of presence
that binds us all together
and to try to think deeply
and move deeply inside
the reality of presence.
But it's a very difficult moment in
which social distancing is also pointing
to the terrible pain of alienation
that we feel we can't be with one another.
- So since you brought this
up really, I'm gonna go
to a question that was sent in
and because it's directly related
that deals with the role of clergy.
And I'm gonna give you a little
historical preface to this
because it helps us think about it.
In 1542, so this is ancient history now.
1542 the city of Geneva was
hit by a terrible plague,
killing a huge portion of the city.
They knew enough about plagues
that they built a hospital
outside the city walls.
But that thing created a
real crisis for the clergy,
who is going to the plague hospital
to minister to the dying?
So the company of ministers
as they were called,
asked for volunteers, no one volunteered.
Finally, a man by the name of
Pierre Blanchet started going
and went in the fall of
'42 and the spring of '43
but then succumbed to the plague and died.
Calvin, who was the head
of this company of pastors,
showed a heart that sometimes
he's not credited with having
and then he as the head he needed to go
and the magistrates of Geneva forbid him.
Said no, you're too important
to this city internationally,
we can't lose you, you can't go.
So the company of pastors met
again, this time they decided
to cast lots, little old
fashioned biblical technique
so they threw lots
and no one upon whom
the lot fell would go.
Finally another pastor voluntarily went,
Matthias d Geneston went but
he only lasted a few weeks.
Well, this illustrates the crisis
that every clergy person, whether
Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
doesn't matter faces
and there have been different
reactions by people.
So Willie has described some of this
and now Jennifer, I'm gonna
ask you if you would react
to what Willie said, since
we were starting with you.
And tell us what would you
say to all of these clergy?
- Yeah, well, I'm thinking
in particular of chaplains
who work in hospital settings
and normally of course, a great part
of what they do is
being physically present
with the suffering and the dying
and their families and so on.
But part of what makes,
this maybe a slightly different,
than the historical example you gave us is
that we don't have in
most cases, hospitals
that are just composed of COVID patients.
We have hospitals that have
all sorts of patients in them.
If you are ministering
to someone with COVID
and you don't have adequate PPE,
you're not just putting yourself at risk,
you're putting at risk everyone else
with whom you come in contact.
But given the nature of this virus
where you don't show any symptoms
for quite a while, you could be passing
that virus on by ministering.
So we have to be very careful
I think before we frame it
as a kind of heroic act of
self-sacrifice on the part
of someone who is willing
to go in without adequate protection.
It could be that
but it could also be reckless
endangerment of others.
So hospitals have, like other
employers a legal obligation
to provide safe working environment.
And they've been struggling
to meet that obligation.
(mumbles) doing a little
bit better job of it,
now there are some heart
wrenching cases of physicians
who were ordered to work
without adequate PPE.
I think in terms of chaplains
and clergy, there is a
good deal of ministering
that can be done without
being physically present.
And that should be happening
that is happening, it's not the same.
I think that's what
Willie was articulating
so powerfully, is it's just not the same.
And I think if there is adequate
PPE and there are clergy
who are willing to go
into those environments,
that's a powerful way to serve.
I think we're all learning ways
of being more fully present
to one another virtually and
we make the most of those.
I think even to say to
another person, I wish so much
that I could hold your hand right now.
I mean, there are ways of communicating
that urgency of the need
for physical presence.
Doesn't quite substitute but it helps.
- Jennifer, I couldn't agree with you more
and lemme add another dimension
to that in which I think ministers
and all clergy can do
their important work.
I was talking to a pastor
who not only is he dealing
with this kind of guilt
but he has in his congregation
a number of nurses
and people who do clean up at hospitals.
Who live in the precarity that
we all know exists for them
where they have to go.
And so he knows he can't go
but he also is with those
who have to go
and know that in his congregation
he has quite a few people
who don't have a choice,
they have to go out every day and work.
And this ties into
what Kathy was talking
about earlier under,
in which she talks about
in her wonderful book,
under finance capitalism,
the kind of pressure,
placed on people to have to work
and to have to put their
lives at risk every day.
I think is a call to us
to action, to challenge
and I think this is my
great worry in terms
of the country opening up.
Because there are so many people
who think helping people
out, giving money,
offering salaries is repugnant to them
because they think
that people are getting
some kind of free handout.
That the pressure being put
on people to go back out
to go back to work
instead of staying at home
and getting a handout,
I've heard a few governors
actually call it that.
I think it's a real problem
and I think one of the things
we ought to do is to challenge
that very framework within
which supporting people right now is seen
as somehow immoral, as opposed
to a moral thing to do.
- (mumbles) add one thing that
the chaplains can't now do
and they can't do virtually
and that is administer the sacraments.
So they can't anoint and
they can't give Eucharist
and there doesn't seem yet to be anything
that we've developed that can do that job.
- There are stories of chaplains,
I read one in Seattle area
who was doing this and
going into the rooms
and administering (mumbles).
And I mean, there are
real challenges there
but that's clergy will make decisions
but this has been, I think
an important discussion
because I'm hoping that a
good number of our alums
who are themselves clergy will watch this
and they're thinking about
it in very powerful ways.
Not abstractly but very concretely.
Lemme move to another group
who's also very vulnerable
and I think we have to
ask ourselves the question
what can we do to help
change the circumstances
so that underrepresented groups,
are not overrepresented in
suffering as they are right now?
So Willie you've done
a lot of work on race
and race relations.
This is an actual question
for you to address,
what would you say?
- Well, as Cornel West said so famously,
when America gets a
cold, the black community
and the Hispanic community get the flu.
That there is a reality of intensity
with whatever afflicts this country
that hits black and brown bodies.
And all we're looking at now points
to the deep structural
problems, the deep inequities
and the deep racist infrastructure that
so much shapes life in this country.
As I was saying earlier,
many of the people
who have no choice, who
have to drive the bus,
who have to clean, they're not
simply there with the nurses
or the nurses leave
and they take off their
dirty PPE materials,
they clean them up.
I mean, they're the ones
having to mop the floor
and they have to go there.
And they don't come home to
a 3,000 square foot house
where they can social distance,
they come home to a
1,100 square foot house
with a lot of people.
And so the struggle here,
I think is to get people
to actually now see what's
always been in front of them.
And Greg, the real challenge will be
what structural changes can
be made as we move forward?
My great worry is that
the desire to return
to what was normal before
which was abnormal in terms
of things we're talking about.
The great rush to return
to what was normal before will cause us
to lose the significance of this moment.
And that is having healthcare
that signals justice
and not profit is what's key.
And having dignity returned to
work so that people are seen
as crucial to the job
before the job is seen
as crucial for people.
And I think this is
really important for us
and unfortunately, given this
moment the number of black
and brown people who have the virus
and are dying by the virus,
especially in these nursing homes,
I mean, this is an underreported fact,
falls back into the
same problem we've had.
And that is, it's the problem
that brought forward the
slogan Black Lives Matter.
Is that the death of black
and brown bodies simply don't register,
in the collective psyche of
this country enough to shock it.
And I think the challenge will
be for us even in the midst
of this trauma to invite
people into more fully,
into the shock of having black
and brown bodies disproportionately sick
and dying of this.
And of course, (mumbles) it points
to underline healthcare issues
which I think is
important remind people of
but I tend not to want to
talk so much about that
because that tends to move
away from the importance
of agency here and the importance
of understanding the structures that help
to create those deep problems in the body.
- All right, thank you.
I will just relay that I heard Nancy Brown
who's the Dean of the
Yale School of Medicine,
talking about the fact
that there is a
disproportionate representation
of those who are ill
and those dying from
underrepresented groups.
And they had actually reached out
to the clergy in AME churches
to try to find some help
to find ways to address this.
So I was very heartened
when I heard Nancy say that,
and I was glad
but I think clergy could
have a role in helping
to address this.
We all need to raise our voices
and point out the shocking
disparities that exists.
- And Greg, if I may just say
one more thing about this.
This gets back to our
earlier conversation,
about unemployment insurance
and getting money to people.
This is one of the challenges.
Just because someone is able to work
that is because there's a job for them.
Under these very dangerous
circumstances doesn't mean
that they ought to
actually work those jobs
or work those jobs to the extent into
which they're being worked.
There's a lot of healthcare workers,
a lot of people who are doing
cleanup and driving buses
and things are working massive amounts
of overtime right now.
Not because they want
to, because they have to
and no one is saying to them,
okay, may be right now
if people are being told
that they have to work, let's
limit it to 10 hours a week.
Let's cut it down so that
their bodies are not at risk.
I mean, this gets back to the problem
of simply saying that work
for work sake is good,
without questioning the
very character of that work.
So I would love to see more clergy,
really open their mouths
about these matters
and not simply repeat the
pundants about the importance
of getting people back to work.
While that is important,
it's also important now
to start to question the work
itself (mumbles) question.
- We need to make sure that people
who have these underlying conditions
or people who have vulnerable
members of their family
at home are not being pressured
to go back into situations
that are not safe.
- But I couldn't agree with Willie more
and he so eloquently put
it I think this is a time
for really rethinking the status quo
that we don't wanna go
back to business as usual.
That the character of work,
the nature of working conditions,
the way in which benefits are
dependent upon employment,
I mean, a whole host of
matters have to be rethought
that a lot of the
disproportionate impact on racial
and ethnic bodies is also
about healthcare inequities
and economic inequities
which desperately need to be addressed.
- And may I just briefly put a plug in
for my colleague Kathy Tanner's
recent book on the spirit
of capitalism, she talks
about this in very helpful
and powerful ways
that if clergy haven't read
it, they really should.
- I agree, I just finished
it, I'll just say amen.
Lemme go now to questions
that have been submitted.
I dipped into one already
but I think we need to look
at some of these.
And John, I'm gonna pose
this first one to you.
A great deal of effort is
going into the development
of a vaccine, once we have a vaccine,
we're going to have
limitations on the supplies
of the vaccine for a period of time.
So what principles would
govern the administration
of the vaccine until enough
of it can be produced
so that everyone can
have their vaccine shot?
- This question is a microcosm
of the whole question about
justice and healthcare.
Under pure capitalism the answer is,
those who can pay for it, get it
and those who can't pay for it, don't.
But there are two groups that
are left out in that system.
One is those who need it the most
and I'm thinking the
people like me who are old
or people who have underlying conditions.
But also I'm thinking those
that Willie was talking about.
That is people for whom it's not so easy
to socially distance.
They have to go to work on the bus.
They are people in need of the vaccine.
So there's a strong biblical tradition
that we go first to the
people who need it most.
And that's in the gospels
and it's in the prophets
also in the Hebrew Scripture.
So that's one kind of group,
those who need it the most,
that's not catered for
under pure capitalism.
The other is people that
we need to keep on working
and they need the vaccine
even if they can't pay for it.
And here also I liked
what Willie said about essential workers
that we're sort of valorizing them now
and we have hearts all over the place
but that's just because our
need for them has become vivid.
But we've always needed them
and we haven't as I said before,
we haven't respected them,
we haven't respected
their dignity as workers.
And that's something
that's becoming clear
if we have eyes to see.
So that's my answer.
Don't think that pure capitalism,
is gonna answer the question,
who gets the vaccine?
Because we need to also
think about those who need it
and those that we need to keep working.
- And can I tack on to that,
that among those who need it,
that we might conveniently want
to ignore are anyone living,
in high density living conditions
which includes people in prisons
and people in homeless shelters.
- Yes, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.
- That's and important point.
So I do think, I worry but
it also means that all of us
who are very privileged we work at Yale
and every one of us,
even those of us in high risk groups John,
can work remotely if we need to.
It's not what we wanna
do but we can do it,
it's not what students want
us to do, we don't wanna do it
but we can do it.
So I think it will be
incumbent upon those of us
who have these privileged places
to be the advocates for those
who don't have the same
platforms that we have.
and who simply can't work from home.
So I'm taking this to
heart in a personal way.
Willie, lemme come back now,
since you kinda got started
on this roll that we're on.
So testing has been a huge
problem from the very outset
and I personally would be quite critical
of some of the people making
decisions in this country,
about their failure to get testing up
to speed when it was
known that we needed it
but that's another matter.
Now we're going to be
facing the question of
how do we adjudicate who gets to test?
I mean, it's still being
adjudicated even now
but rather than simply
answering it on the basis of,
do you have a car to drive
through a testing center?
Or can you get to a testing center?
What ethical principles would you advocate
that we think about trying
to incorporate for testing?
They may be the same as for the vaccine
or are they any different?
- The difficulty, Greg,
thank you for that.
I mean, the difficulty
is that the whole process
of gearing up for testing
is still being driven
by the logic of the market
and the logic of capitalism.
That is, how can someone make money?
How can we weave this
into the regular practices
of production and consumption in order
that on the other side,
that remains exactly as it has been?
And so what this comes back to is the need
for different moral calculus about
what does it mean to,
as we know the the Office
of the President is such
that companies can be told
you're gonna gear up for testing,
you're going to gear
up making these tests.
And we're not concerned about profit,
we're not concerned about what
you're gonna make off this,
what we're going to do now
is take the entire chain
of production from development
to the resources, all of that
and we're going to suspend
capitalist calculation on it.
You're gonna make it because
this is the right thing to do
but of course, we haven't
heard anything like that.
And we're not gonna
hear anything like that
because so much of this is tied to
how do we sustain the
possibility of profitability
at the other end.
Now, please don't get me
wrong, I'm not against profit
but what I am against is imagining
how we move forward inside,
thinking about profitability first
and sustaining the way
companies do business.
So what should happen?
If in fact, we think from a position
that every life in this country is sacred,
every life is crucial and just as I would
with my own child want to
know if she or he was sick
so too I wanna know for
everyone in this country
as often as I need to
know how they're doing.
And so what does that mean?
It means that every
company that can be asked
to help to not only make tests
but disseminate them we're
gonna align them all together
to do that.
Now, of course, the
challenge there is you have
to have not only a clear
message from the highest points
of government about this
but you have to challenge not
only the conspiracy theories,
but the way this country
is so divided politically.
Where massive portions
of this country believe
that this kind of government
intervention is a precursor
to something even more sinister.
That has to be challenged
but I think we begin there,
before we begin talking
about distribution.
We begin with the shared responsibility
of caring for one another,
which I think is at the heart
of what our word to the government ought
to be at every level.
There is a mandate now
to use that old language
of living into the shared
responsibility of care.
We all have to do that.
- Seems to me we we need to
remember three words we know,
we the people and that's where
the emphasis needs to be put,
on the people.
Thank you, there's another problem
that's been generated by all of this.
And this is the problem
that addresses xenophobia
and in particular the kinds
of biases against Chinese people,
including Asian Americans right here.
It doesn't have to be all
the way to mainland China,
it can be Chinese Americans.
So Kathy, how would you
help people think about
how can we avoid the kinds
of unconscious bigotries
that we sometimes succumb to
and how do we oppose
the more overt polemics
that we hear in various venues?
- And those are great questions.
I mean two theological
considerations come immediately
to mind that might be
helpful against xenophobia
and hate speech in particular.
First, just the sense that
Christianity can encourage forms
of identification that
don't line up easily
with national boundaries or
racial and ethnic divisions
or economic disparities.
I think for example,
that if Christians find
their identity in Christ,
that that can break the hold
of other forms of identification
that set them off over
and against others.
Part for matters of identification,
kind of self-image I
wanna understand oneself.
Secondly, Christianity can encourage forms
of clearly of social solidarity
that run roughshod over
those same boundaries,
divisions and disparities.
The all encompassing community of sinners
which often theologians believe overlaps
with an equally all encompassing
community among the saved,
the idea that can help
prevent the easy distinctions,
between the blameworthy and the righteous,
the deserving and the undeserved.
But that idea of community
can help break the sense
that one might isolate
oneself from others,
in a purely protective posture.
In terms of delivering any
of those messages effectively
against xenophobia
and hate speech I think
that these ideas need
to be put into practice.
The ideas of social solidarity
and alternative forms of
identification in league
with as many like minded
folks as possible.
That's the only effective way
of conveying that message.
- Thank you, anyone else?
We'll just all say amen I think.
I wanna recognize one thing
and then pose a final question.
One of the things
that I have most appreciated
in just listening
to you is the fact that
you have thought about
what underlies some of the struggles
that we have, some of the
major issues of the principles
and the foundations that
have shaped our practices
and are challenging those
in the name of Christianity
which is not often done.
That leads me directly to my last question
and maybe all of you would
like to respond to this.
That is, what is the role
of religion in this crisis?
Some people have said, "Well,
this is a health crisis.
"or it's an economic crisis
and that's all it is."
So we need a vaccine, we
need treatments, et Cetera,
we all agree that we need those things.
But what would you say?
What leverage can religion play?
And since we all five of
us happen to be Christians,
you can speak from Christianity
but you can also speak more
broadly because we share this
with our Jewish brothers and
sisters and Muslim brothers
and sisters and we Buddhists
as well, so others Hindus.
What would you say to this broad issue?
- Trying to start.
- [Greg] (mumbles) yeah, please.
- The Governor Cuomo, he said,
"The fundamental issue is how
much is a human life worth?"
And I think that's wrongly posed in a way
because it suggests that
human life has a price
which I think it doesn't.
But the fundamental question
what is a human life worth?
That's something that a
Christian has something
to say about.
We're made in the image of God.
We're called to union with God
and so we derive our
value from God's value.
And that gives us a place to stand.
And I think that in our
culture there are many people
that place to stand.
- So this would be an
argument against herd immunity
and what we heard initially from some.
We'll let the virus take its course
and sacrifice people
of a certain age group
and those without immune deficiencies
and that's just the price we pay.
I mean, that's in essence
what happened historically in the past,
when they didn't have vaccines.
They eventually developed herd immunities
but that was negating the
value of a lot of lives.
- [Willie] Absolutely, absolutely.
- I would really underscore
what John has said
and also reiterate something
that Kathy just said.
So when I do think that
this is a moment in
which voices articulating
that each person is precious
and loved by God can be heard.
People are suffering, people are looking
for an articulation of that
sense of ultimate meaning.
So to be able to stand up and proclaim
that the world is God's beloved creation,
that each person is precious
and loved by God, I think that's something
that Christian voices and can
and should be doing are doing.
The other thing I would
wanna underscore here is
that there was I think, as
the virus really started
to take off, there was this global shock
and there was a brief moment
of sense of intense solidarity.
We're together facing this global crisis
but I think that that's
given way to a new phase
of finger pointing and assigning blame
and that we are trying to make sense
of this catastrophic event
by kind of weaving back into
our customary narratives.
And for some people
and this sort of picks up on
something Willie said earlier.
For some people this is
weaving this crisis into,
a narrative about government
threatening individual liberty.
There are other narratives.
So we have really a contest
of narratives going on here
and Christians have another narrative
which is this narrative
about God's self-giving love
to the world that even leads
up to the cross, right?
God's solidarity with human
suffering in the world
but we have Christians on both sides
of these political narratives.
And so the challenge is as
Christians to find ways to speak
that draws to that first
strand of affirmation
of human preciousness in the eyes of God
and away from the
narratives that so divide
and tear us apart.
- Kathy, do you wanna
add anything to this?
- I'd like to second the Jennifer sense
that Christianity can offer
a different sort of narrative
that doesn't divide people,
that isn't primarily
concerned to assign blame
and to shuffle off blame from oneself.
But I guess a further point is just
that the crisis is
unveiling if it ever needed
to be unveiled just some
death dealing injustices
that are promoting the depth
of the crisis, especially
for particular populations
and religion (mumbles)
problems at that level,
at that depth.
I mean, we're not necessarily looking
for technocratic fixes.
I mean, scientific fix would be wonderful
but there are bigger issues
that religious folk tend
to be able to address.
They have the vocabulary to address them.
- Thank you, Willie, we
give you the last word.
- Well, and I agree with
what my colleagues have said
and Kathy's comments just
I think are really crucial.
I do think that there are
a couple of things that we
who are religious and we who
are Christian have to say,
unique contributions we
have to make at this moment.
The first has to do
with how we handle fear.
Like everyone else we are in the midst
of the most powerful moment of fear
that I think most people
have seen in their lifetime.
And those of us who
believe we have something
to say about how one deals with fear
and how one's life is not to be governed
by fear even though we are afraid.
And I think that's crucial for us.
I mean, we can add to that
on this crucial point.
We as Christians we have some
wonderful particular things
to say about death and
how we deal with death
and how we don't let death
become the way guide us in
how we live life.
We live life even in the face of death.
But I also think and this
ties in with what Kathy
and Jennifer both said a moment ago
that those of us who are religious,
we can collectively say to
the world, it's time to pause.
We will not go back to the way things were
and if there's anything that
religious communities can do,
we can say this is a time to pause
and as Jennifer said,
make use of our creativity
and think a new future.
We can think a new future
because we have the courage to do so.
And so I would love for us,
I would love for all religious
communities to together say,
as much as we can be together
and say, let's take this
moment to think a new future.
One in which people are more
important than the economy,
one in which healthcare is not something
that needs to be tied to profit.
It's a simple human right and
that life together now has
to be thought all the time
because we are together.
I would love to see us make
that a part of the kind
of shared public witness
of religion at this moment.
And certainly not be those
who simply parrot whatever
government is saying,
any government, but
actually have something
that shows our unique
reality in this world.
- I wanna say thank you as your colleague
and as the Dean of the
Divinity School to each
of our four panelists for their
very thoughtful responses.
And I hope when you listen to this
or watch this will realize this is just
what they've done purely gratis.
It's not like they have
extra time in their lives
but they've done this because
they share a real concern
for the human situation.
They share a concern for
people in this country
and in our world for all people
and I commend you and thank you.
So I hope that all will take good care
of yourselves wherever you are
and we will work to think and to imagine
and to build a new future, goodbye.
