In “Refusing Responsibility,” Paul S. Rees explores a timeless issue in both human nature and spirituality: the tendency to shirk responsibility. He begins by drawing a parallel between a humorous observation by Ogden Nash and a biting critique by Elton Trueblood, both of whom address the modern inclination to dodge life’s duties. Rees uses the biblical story of Aaron and the golden calf (Exodus 32:24) as a case study in avoiding accountability. Aaron, when confronted by Moses, attempts to excuse his actions by claiming that the calf simply emerged from the fire, downplaying his active role in the creation of the idol. Rees highlights this as an example of a broader human weakness—our propensity to blame external factors or others for our shortcomings.
Rees argues that this avoidance of responsibility is not just an ancient problem but a contemporary one, deeply embedded in our culture. He notes that people often attribute their failures to “natural forces” or societal pressures, much like Aaron did. This tendency to excuse ourselves by blaming circumstances or others undermines the biblical call to live responsibly. The article challenges us to confront the ways we might be like Aaron, shifting blame rather than owning our actions. Rees reminds us that, as creatures made in the image of God, we are called to a higher standard of accountability, both to ourselves and to God.
The heart of Rees’ argument lies in the assertion that responsibility is inescapable and foundational to human existence. He delves into various domains of life where responsibility manifests: personal life, family, work, community, and the church. Rees stresses that we cannot escape the fact that we are responsible for our own actions and choices. He cites Galatians 6:5, “For every man shall bear his own burden,” to underscore the point that each person must carry their own weight in life. This idea is echoed by Professor Hocking, who posits that while nature may largely complete other creatures, humans must complete themselves through responsible actions.
Rees doesn’t stop at individual responsibility but extends it to familial and societal contexts. He emphasizes that in family life, responsibility is mutual and involves nurturing love, care, and loyalty. He points out that parents play a crucial role in shaping their children’s sense of responsibility, citing the example of a father who delayed installing an automatic heating system so his son could learn responsibility by managing the manual one. This emphasis on family as the first social unit where responsibility is learned is crucial, as it sets the foundation for broader social responsibilities.
In discussing work and community, Rees points out the mutual nature of responsibilities between employers and employees, as well as the importance of contributing to societal well-being. He critiques the breakdown of responsibility in these areas, evidenced by frequent strikes and injunctions, as symptoms of a deeper issue—a lack of mutual respect and understanding. Rees calls for a “new spirit” and a “different disposition,” one that values responsibility over self-interest.
The article concludes with a strong emphasis on the church as the center of our responsibilities. Rees reflects on Ephesians 4, emphasizing that Christ’s gifts to the church are meant for equipping the saints and building up the body of Christ. He challenges readers to prioritize their responsibilities to the church and to Christ above all else. This call to prioritize spiritual responsibilities highlights the importance of living a life aligned with Christian values and teachings.
Rees also addresses common devices we use to evade responsibility. He criticizes the tendency to blame natural forces or societal pressures for our actions, as Aaron did. He argues that such excuses are not only dishonest but also diminish our humanity by denying our capacity for moral choice and self-discipline. Rees emphasizes that true responsibility involves acknowledging our faults, seeking forgiveness, and striving to live in accordance with God’s will.
To deepen our understanding, Rees’ insights can be complemented by those of other theologians. For instance, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in The Cost of Discipleship, argues that cheap grace, or forgiveness without repentance, is a form of evading responsibility. This aligns with Rees’ critique of making excuses instead of owning up to our actions. Bonhoeffer’s call for costly grace—a grace that demands genuine repentance and transformation—echoes Rees’ appeal for responsible living. Similarly, C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, discusses the importance of taking responsibility for our moral choices, emphasizing that excuses do not absolve us from the consequences of our actions.
Rees’ article provides a thoughtful exploration of how responsibility, or the lack thereof, impacts our lives and relationships. By examining Aaron’s failure, he illustrates a common human tendency to avoid accountability. This reflection invites us to consider our own lives and the ways we might be avoiding responsibility, whether in personal, familial, or societal contexts. It challenges us to confront these tendencies honestly and to embrace a more responsible, Christ-centered way of living.
In summary, “Refusing Responsibility” is a call to action. It urges us to stop making excuses, to take responsibility for our actions, and to live in a way that honors God and others. Rees’ insights, supported by the works of Bonhoeffer and Lewis, offer a compelling reminder that true Christian living involves embracing our responsibilities fully, both to God and to our fellow humans.
PLEASE COMMENT, SHARE, SUBSCRIBE