Photo by No Revisions on Unsplash
Changing your Mind for God's Sake
reflections on oath taking and oath breaking
I remember two young prophets, age ten, who taught me the value of not being patriotic, for God's sake. They were Jehovah's Witnesses. When I was in elementary school, we began classes each day by pledging allegiance to the American flag. In one class, these two students refused to put their hands to their hearts and recite the pledge. They explained that their parents told them not to because their parents believed that pledging allegiance conflicts with their religious principles, which prioritize allegiance to God over any earthly authority. I remember thinking that their explanation made sense. I knew that God was more important than a flag. But I pledged allegiance anyway. I wanted to fit in.
Don't get me wrong. There are some circumstances in which pledging allegiance—oath-taking—is generally a good thing. Examples include individuals taking citizenship oaths pledging loyalty to a new country, public officials such as presidents and judges swearing oaths of office to uphold laws and constitutions, doctors taking the Hippocratic Oath to commit to ethical medical practice, and couples exchanging marriage vows pledging love and fidelity. In so many circumstances, these are to be appreciated.
We can easily imagine oaths we wish everyone would take, ourselves included—promises to live with integrity, to treat others with kindness and respect, to protect the planet for future generations, and to seek justice and peace in our daily lives. These oaths could serve as guiding principles, reminding us of our deepest values and aspirations. They would act as a moral compass, helping us navigate the complexities of life with a sense of purpose and responsibility. Whether taken individually or collectively, these commitments could foster a sense of shared humanity, encouraging us to contribute to the common good and to live in harmony with each other and the world around us.
The Metaphysical Value of Oath Taking
Whitehead would likely appreciate the value of taking oaths as a reflection of the profound importance of commitment and trust in the fabric of human relationships and society. In his metaphysical framework, where every occasion of experience is interconnected and influenced by its environment, taking an oath would be seen as a deliberate act that shapes the future by formalizing intentions and aligning one's subjective aims with the expectations of others. Oaths create a structured and binding relationship between individuals or groups, fostering a sense of responsibility that contributes to the ongoing creative advance into novelty. For Whitehead, the act of taking a healthy oath would symbolize a conscious decision to participate in the shared pursuit of truth, justice, or mutual support, acknowledging that such commitments have lasting implications within the web of interrelationships that constitute our reality.
The Need to Break Oaths, Too
And yet, as my two friends made clear, there are circumstances where not taking an oath is admirable, and where, once taken, it may be morally appropriate to break an oath. I think of the Nuremberg trials, where individuals were held accountable for following immoral orders despite having taken oaths of loyalty, illustrating that moral responsibility can sometimes necessitate breaking even the most solemn promises. I think also of Oscar Schindler, who broke his allegiance to the Nazi Party to save the lives of over a thousand Jews during the Holocaust, and Sophie Scholl, a member of the White Rose resistance group who defied Nazi ideology and paid with her life. Both exemplify the courage it takes to break oaths and stand up for higher moral principles. Other examples include whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, and Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance practices. Their actions highlight the importance of sometimes defying oaths to serve justice and the greater good.
Subjective Aims and New Initial Aims
In Whitehead's philosophy, the breaking of oaths for a higher good can be understood through the interplay between subjective aims and initial aims. Each moment of experience is guided by a subjective aim—a set of goals and desires that shape our actions. These aims can be healthy or unhealthy, honest or dishonest, loving or unloving, depending on the context and the individual's development.
Initial aims, on the other hand, represent the optimal possibilities that God offers to each moment of experience. These divine lures guide individuals toward the best possible outcome in any given situation, considering the broader context of the world. Our subjective aims may or may not correspond to these initial aims. Our goals for living may or may not mirror God's hopes for us. My two friends were saying that, for them, God's hope is that we worship God, not a flag or even the idea of America.
Sometimes, of course, we live by goals and even make promises and pledge ourselves to the promises we make. Then, for one reason or another, we begin to have doubts. When faced with the dilemma of breaking an oath, this decision can be seen as a conflict or re-evaluation of one's subjective aim in light of a new initial aim that suggests a higher good. The original oath represents a commitment made based on a previous subjective aim that was likely in harmony with the initial aim at that time. However, as circumstances evolve, a new initial aim may present itself, offering a different possibility that aligns with a broader or more ethical good. Examples will help:
Loyalty to a Friend vs. Protecting a Community
Imagine someone has sworn an oath of secrecy to a close friend who has confided in them about illegal activity. The subjective aim behind this oath might be loyalty and trust. However, over time, the person realizes that the illegal activity could harm a larger community. A new initial aim—the possibility of preventing harm to the community—arises, suggesting a higher good that conflicts with the original oath.
Breaking the oath in this context would mean re-aligning their subjective aim with the new initial aim, which now presents a greater ethical obligation to protect the community. This re-evaluation reflects a shift towards a more comprehensive understanding of their responsibility, driven by the divine lure toward the greater good.
A Political Leader and a Broken Promise
Political leaders might swear an oath to uphold a particular policy, such as maintaining low taxes, with the subjective aim of serving their constituents' economic interests. However, during an economic crisis, they may face a new initial aim—raising taxes to fund critical social services like healthcare and education.
Here, leaders must re-evaluate their subjective aim. Breaking the oath to prioritize the well-being of the broader society would align their actions with the new initial aim, which offers a higher ethical standard. This decision reflects a shift from the original commitment to a more compassionate and just outcome.
Personal Integrity vs. Public Welfare
Scientists who has taken an oath to adhere strictly to research protocols might discover a potential public health risk during their work. The original subjective aim of maintaining scientific integrity could conflict with a new initial aim—the opportunity to prevent harm by sharing the findings early.
In this scenario, breaking the oath to protect public welfare reflects a re-alignment of the scientist's subjective aim with the higher good presented by the divine lure. This decision balances the ethical responsibility of scientific integrity with the immediate need to prevent harm.
Breaking an Oath for Personal Growth
A person might take an oath of celibacy, believing it aligns with their spiritual growth. Over time, however, they may encounter experiences that reveal a new initial aim—the possibility of deep, loving relationships that contribute to their personal development.
Breaking the oath in this context reflects a shift in subjective aim, guided by the new initial aim that suggests a different path to fulfillment. The decision honors the evolving nature of the individual's journey toward greater love and connection.
Prayerful Listening
In all of these examples, there is rarely, if ever, certainty. What might seem like a new initial aim may, in fact, be a projection of the ego, a mere product of social pressure, or an act of self-deception. The discernment of what constitutes a genuine initial aim—a true lure from God—versus a false one is an ongoing spiritual challenge. This is where the wisdom of community, spiritual practice, and ethical reflection becomes crucial. It is not a matter of simply breaking or keeping an oath, but of carefully weighing the deeper values at stake, listening for the quiet yet persistent call of the divine, and having the courage to follow it, even when it leads to difficult and unpopular choices.
This listening is an act of prayer. It requires solitude, getting away from the crowd, including the crowds inside the mind, and listening for deeper guidance. In this quiet, reflective space, one opens themselves to the possibility of hearing a divine whisper or feeling a subtle nudge that offers insight into the best course of action. And even here, there is no certainty—no absolute guarantee that the path chosen is the right one. But there can be assurance, a sense of peace or clarity that comes from aligning oneself with a higher purpose or moral truth.
It takes courage to break a promise when the promise itself begins to seem immoral, especially when doing so risks misunderstanding, conflict, or personal loss. Yet, this courage is rooted in the conviction that some principles transcend the bonds of any human-made oath. In these moments, prayerful listening becomes not just a practice but a lifeline, guiding one through the complexities of moral decision-making with a heart attuned to the deeper calls of justice and love.
Trust
There is no calculus by which to ascertain, with certainty, whether it is better to keep a pledge or break a pledge. Normally, it seems to me, keeping pledges, keeping promises, is the much greater good. We need to trust one another to keep their promises. And we need to be faithful to the promises we make. But not always! The act of decision entails a risk. What is important is to keep in mind how decisions affect others and the common good. What is important is to pledge allegiance, most deeply, not to any finite good, but to creative good - the lure of Love - which transcends all flags. My two childhood friends, both Jehovah's Witnesses, understood this.
Don't get me wrong. There are some circumstances in which pledging allegiance—oath-taking—is generally a good thing. Examples include individuals taking citizenship oaths pledging loyalty to a new country, public officials such as presidents and judges swearing oaths of office to uphold laws and constitutions, doctors taking the Hippocratic Oath to commit to ethical medical practice, and couples exchanging marriage vows pledging love and fidelity. In so many circumstances, these are to be appreciated.
We can easily imagine oaths we wish everyone would take, ourselves included—promises to live with integrity, to treat others with kindness and respect, to protect the planet for future generations, and to seek justice and peace in our daily lives. These oaths could serve as guiding principles, reminding us of our deepest values and aspirations. They would act as a moral compass, helping us navigate the complexities of life with a sense of purpose and responsibility. Whether taken individually or collectively, these commitments could foster a sense of shared humanity, encouraging us to contribute to the common good and to live in harmony with each other and the world around us.
The Metaphysical Value of Oath Taking
Whitehead would likely appreciate the value of taking oaths as a reflection of the profound importance of commitment and trust in the fabric of human relationships and society. In his metaphysical framework, where every occasion of experience is interconnected and influenced by its environment, taking an oath would be seen as a deliberate act that shapes the future by formalizing intentions and aligning one's subjective aims with the expectations of others. Oaths create a structured and binding relationship between individuals or groups, fostering a sense of responsibility that contributes to the ongoing creative advance into novelty. For Whitehead, the act of taking a healthy oath would symbolize a conscious decision to participate in the shared pursuit of truth, justice, or mutual support, acknowledging that such commitments have lasting implications within the web of interrelationships that constitute our reality.
The Need to Break Oaths, Too
And yet, as my two friends made clear, there are circumstances where not taking an oath is admirable, and where, once taken, it may be morally appropriate to break an oath. I think of the Nuremberg trials, where individuals were held accountable for following immoral orders despite having taken oaths of loyalty, illustrating that moral responsibility can sometimes necessitate breaking even the most solemn promises. I think also of Oscar Schindler, who broke his allegiance to the Nazi Party to save the lives of over a thousand Jews during the Holocaust, and Sophie Scholl, a member of the White Rose resistance group who defied Nazi ideology and paid with her life. Both exemplify the courage it takes to break oaths and stand up for higher moral principles. Other examples include whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, and Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance practices. Their actions highlight the importance of sometimes defying oaths to serve justice and the greater good.
Subjective Aims and New Initial Aims
In Whitehead's philosophy, the breaking of oaths for a higher good can be understood through the interplay between subjective aims and initial aims. Each moment of experience is guided by a subjective aim—a set of goals and desires that shape our actions. These aims can be healthy or unhealthy, honest or dishonest, loving or unloving, depending on the context and the individual's development.
Initial aims, on the other hand, represent the optimal possibilities that God offers to each moment of experience. These divine lures guide individuals toward the best possible outcome in any given situation, considering the broader context of the world. Our subjective aims may or may not correspond to these initial aims. Our goals for living may or may not mirror God's hopes for us. My two friends were saying that, for them, God's hope is that we worship God, not a flag or even the idea of America.
Sometimes, of course, we live by goals and even make promises and pledge ourselves to the promises we make. Then, for one reason or another, we begin to have doubts. When faced with the dilemma of breaking an oath, this decision can be seen as a conflict or re-evaluation of one's subjective aim in light of a new initial aim that suggests a higher good. The original oath represents a commitment made based on a previous subjective aim that was likely in harmony with the initial aim at that time. However, as circumstances evolve, a new initial aim may present itself, offering a different possibility that aligns with a broader or more ethical good. Examples will help:
Loyalty to a Friend vs. Protecting a Community
Imagine someone has sworn an oath of secrecy to a close friend who has confided in them about illegal activity. The subjective aim behind this oath might be loyalty and trust. However, over time, the person realizes that the illegal activity could harm a larger community. A new initial aim—the possibility of preventing harm to the community—arises, suggesting a higher good that conflicts with the original oath.
Breaking the oath in this context would mean re-aligning their subjective aim with the new initial aim, which now presents a greater ethical obligation to protect the community. This re-evaluation reflects a shift towards a more comprehensive understanding of their responsibility, driven by the divine lure toward the greater good.
A Political Leader and a Broken Promise
Political leaders might swear an oath to uphold a particular policy, such as maintaining low taxes, with the subjective aim of serving their constituents' economic interests. However, during an economic crisis, they may face a new initial aim—raising taxes to fund critical social services like healthcare and education.
Here, leaders must re-evaluate their subjective aim. Breaking the oath to prioritize the well-being of the broader society would align their actions with the new initial aim, which offers a higher ethical standard. This decision reflects a shift from the original commitment to a more compassionate and just outcome.
Personal Integrity vs. Public Welfare
Scientists who has taken an oath to adhere strictly to research protocols might discover a potential public health risk during their work. The original subjective aim of maintaining scientific integrity could conflict with a new initial aim—the opportunity to prevent harm by sharing the findings early.
In this scenario, breaking the oath to protect public welfare reflects a re-alignment of the scientist's subjective aim with the higher good presented by the divine lure. This decision balances the ethical responsibility of scientific integrity with the immediate need to prevent harm.
Breaking an Oath for Personal Growth
A person might take an oath of celibacy, believing it aligns with their spiritual growth. Over time, however, they may encounter experiences that reveal a new initial aim—the possibility of deep, loving relationships that contribute to their personal development.
Breaking the oath in this context reflects a shift in subjective aim, guided by the new initial aim that suggests a different path to fulfillment. The decision honors the evolving nature of the individual's journey toward greater love and connection.
Prayerful Listening
In all of these examples, there is rarely, if ever, certainty. What might seem like a new initial aim may, in fact, be a projection of the ego, a mere product of social pressure, or an act of self-deception. The discernment of what constitutes a genuine initial aim—a true lure from God—versus a false one is an ongoing spiritual challenge. This is where the wisdom of community, spiritual practice, and ethical reflection becomes crucial. It is not a matter of simply breaking or keeping an oath, but of carefully weighing the deeper values at stake, listening for the quiet yet persistent call of the divine, and having the courage to follow it, even when it leads to difficult and unpopular choices.
This listening is an act of prayer. It requires solitude, getting away from the crowd, including the crowds inside the mind, and listening for deeper guidance. In this quiet, reflective space, one opens themselves to the possibility of hearing a divine whisper or feeling a subtle nudge that offers insight into the best course of action. And even here, there is no certainty—no absolute guarantee that the path chosen is the right one. But there can be assurance, a sense of peace or clarity that comes from aligning oneself with a higher purpose or moral truth.
It takes courage to break a promise when the promise itself begins to seem immoral, especially when doing so risks misunderstanding, conflict, or personal loss. Yet, this courage is rooted in the conviction that some principles transcend the bonds of any human-made oath. In these moments, prayerful listening becomes not just a practice but a lifeline, guiding one through the complexities of moral decision-making with a heart attuned to the deeper calls of justice and love.
Trust
There is no calculus by which to ascertain, with certainty, whether it is better to keep a pledge or break a pledge. Normally, it seems to me, keeping pledges, keeping promises, is the much greater good. We need to trust one another to keep their promises. And we need to be faithful to the promises we make. But not always! The act of decision entails a risk. What is important is to keep in mind how decisions affect others and the common good. What is important is to pledge allegiance, most deeply, not to any finite good, but to creative good - the lure of Love - which transcends all flags. My two childhood friends, both Jehovah's Witnesses, understood this.