My current class in the program is basically the start of a two-part series on Ethics. From the reading in class it was really surprising to me to realize how right "right" is. I know I said that kind of weird, but bear with me. In class we talked quite a bit about that lady who lied to the governing authorities to protect some of God's people. (ok, that actually is two different instances, Rahab and that lady-who's-name-i-can't-remember). There was a hierarchy of virtue/values which both based their correct decisions off of. Lying (which is wrong.. right?) was acceptable for the good of saving lives from evil intentioned people.
Here's the part where I kinda surprised myself. I didn't even consider the fact that they lied to be remarkable. I suppose I thought that there's always going to be little "gives" in life and that we can't possibly live just lives. But.... I think we can. At least we can live much more "rightly" than we do. For sure I can. So as one of the results, I've become a lot more sensitive to civic uprightness, the strongest examples being: 1) Fully stopping at stop signs. and the second is similar 2) Driving close to the speed limit (i consider 5 miles over to be what is the desired maximum of a city, is that not reasonable?). I can't slide through a stop sign (i.e. california stop) without a sense of conviction, which I think is a good thing. I've started fully stopping. (c:
I think we need to be really careful with how much flexing of the rules we allow in our lives. Every time we die to our inward rebellion against rules, we build character and integrity. I think character/integrity is illustrated when we do what is right when it doesn't seem to matter. Our culture in general doesn't have a very friendly attitude toward consistent right behavior, and I think part of that anger comes from people's own conviction of wrong-doing.
There's more to this, relating to Christianity and such, but I'll put up those thoughts in the comments. I'll finish by saying that legalism does not mean righteousness, but as people made righteous, we should go above and beyond the legal codes set up by our society. Righteous behavior is not just abstaining from doing wrong, but rather it is actively doing what is very good and right.
6 comments:
I just chatted with Will a bit and he said that what I'm talking about borders on legalism.. and goes against the idea of "the spirit of the law" which many rule benders claim. I suggested that "the spirit of the law" may be used to rationalize not following the rules.
To be honest, I'm kind of confused about the whole thing.
I want to go and do things which I know are of no consequence, but which have laws (gov't laws) against them. Like climbing a wall or tree somewhere. Or driving 85 mph on the freeway (when 65 is the "limit").
This relates to Christianity a bit.. are we to observe the Sabbath? Christ has fulfilled the Law when we could not.. can we now pursue fulfilling the Law by the power of the Spirit, or is the Law's purpose done away with? (I know Romans goes all over this, and I have an pretty sure idea of what it does say about it). Grace is there for the believer who is unable to fulfill the Law, but what of civil rules and laws?
Thinking more on this as I drove home (and made all the numerous stop-sign stops along the way), I think maybe civic/cultural/societal rules/laws can be taken consequentially.. which is different than absolute moral Law that God outlines.
I can understand people saying, "I know I'm risking an accident or ticket by driving fast, but it is a risk I'm willing to take.." and that not being _wrong_ in the same sense as immorality is wrong. It is inconsiderate in many ways, but not immoral. The idea of conscientious comes to mind.
Here's the definition as giving in a dictionary:
conscientious
adjective
(of a person) wishing to do what is right, esp. to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly : a conscientious and hardworking clerk.
• (of work or a person's manner) showing such an attitude : a conscientious and purposeful look on her face.
• relating to a person's conscience : the act does not provide exemption from service on the basis of personal conscientious beliefs./quote
I'm at odds with myself about the idea of "judging" other people for their actions (and the nasty air of condemnation that goes with that.. ugly tension, etc..) and holding them accountable to right action (or just letting the ultimate accountability happen as they reckon with God about it).
I think we need to be obedient to God, do all things for His glory, and do what we do to please Him. There are some things clearly revealed in Scripture to help us know how to do this. The section in Romans you mentioned is one of them. I was teaching that several years ago and was convicted about the same things you mentioned, especially speed... so I slowed down to within 5 mph of the posted speed limit (and 10 mph on the freeway). It was good for me. It made me drive to please the Lord. It was a vertical thing-- me driving under God's hand.
Legalism, in my viewpoint, is when we have a spiritual yardstick by which we measure ourselves and others by things which can be seen. Sometimes these may be the same things God wants us to do for Him, but there is a horizontal element that says, if God wants me to do it, He must want you to do it too! That's when we start judging each other based on externals.
The Lord wanted me to wear long dresses for about a year and a half and refrain from reading fiction and woman's magazines, earlier in my life. I did, and it was very good for me! Others may have been doing it for other reasons, but for me it was a vertical thing, and not something I thought anyone else should do.
Ah, ethics, integrity and legalism. It is interesting that you have associated integrity with ethics. Generally ethics are the cultural moral norms, and will therefore vary from place to place. The ethics of life in the Philippines are a little different than in the US. Obedience to posted signs is a good example of that. Is it ethically worse to adhere stubbornly to traffic signs, and thus completely disrupt the flow of drivers around you, or be a conscientious citizen and keep things flowing? See how the question can be framed? There are similar situations in the US, but not as much in the arena of traffic. An example here in Michigan is the ginseng growers license. If you grow cultivated ginseng, you must register and be licensed. But there is a severe problem with poaching, and those on the licensee list, which is public record, are the targets. So, to preserve the tradition of cultivating ginseng, people do not register. Is it unethical? Some would say yes, others no.
Civic ethics places a lot of trust on the rules and regulations of the community, and those who make them. But... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is a certain indicator of the attitude we are to take. We do have a choice about our own involvement in creating or challenging those rules and regulations, and even where we live. While obeying the rules is a first step in civic responsibility, being involved in the formation and evaluation of the rules is a higher order of responsibility. Obedience with objection is by no means unethical.
How does integrity fit in? Integrity is really being true to who you are. It is having actions that are in line with what you believe. A man that can be trusted to consistently act on his beliefs/values has integrity, even if we do no hold the same values. So, if one were think that rules are silly and we don't really need to follow them, but do anyway for the sake of looking like a good citizen, it is not really acting with integrity. It would show more integrity to ignore said supposedly silly rules, regardless of the consequences.
Now, legalism is a different arena all together as it is a spiritual term with negative connotative and denotative meaning. It implies a lack of integrity. A legalistic mentality is not true to the beliefs and values that generated the guidelines, but looks to the guidelines as having value in themselves. This is the problem of the pharisee: in civic behavior they were upright, but it did not match what was in their hearts. They were actors. The "spirit of the law" stance is only viable if you really believe the spirit of the law. In driving and speed, the spirit of the law is safe speeds. If you wholly believe that safe speeds are to be observed, you may drive with the flow of traffic, as driving 15 mph slower, but at the speed limit is not a safe speed in that case. But when observing the "spirit of the law" you must be prepared to accept the consequences of the letter of the law.
So, what motivates ones attention to civic responsibility? Is it a genuine desire to bring actions/behavior in line with beliefs/values, is it to pay lip service to good citizenship, or is it to appear righteous in the eyes of others?
Uh-oh, pedantic man: ethics are actually more commonly known as more absolute "oughts," while a particular culture's set of principles are called mores. Therefore what is moral in one culture may not be moral in another, but a discussion of ethics is usually supposed to transcend culture. At least that's how I learned it. But aside from that wording, what Samaritan said made lots of sense.
I don't have anything as substantial to add as those who've gone before, but I'll say that I've always (for reasons many of you know) seen goodness and law-abidingness being separate but partially overlapping things. And while I've always yearned for the good, I haven't yearned much for the law, except in the overlap. There's a big difference between the Law that David meditated on and the one written in the county code-books. That being said, I still recognize Romans 13 as important.
I remember a sermon I heard a decade ago about God being Truth, and in him there being no absence of truth, and how that meant that there should be no deception of any sort in his people. I talked to a couple of Talbot students afterward and ended up going through the old "sheltering Jews during the Holocaust" hypothetical with them. Is lying to Nazi's sin? I think that I remember the students saying it wasn't, and I maintained that it was, but that it was still "good" to do so. I think I was bothered by what I perceived as a an unwillingness to see all types of deception as a violation of shalom. Not that I was against that deception in practice, but I just wanted to make sure that it was being called out for what it was: less than what is intended in human relations.
I'm already resigned to being found in the violators camp with everyone else. There's grace for that, and I live in it. I just find it annoying when people try and say that some things in conflict with God's character aren't sin. I don't see sin like they do. Sin is simply anything that is out of step with the way things would be if they were in their richest harmony. The harmony God intended and intends to restore. So much of my life falls shy of that that I'm not particularly judgemental about the particulars, and merely strive for as near an orbit as God's mercy affords.
It's somewhat of a strange road, being willing to call so many things sin, yet trying not to do so in the manner of the log-eyed. The self-righteous call out the sin of others. The liberal are reluctant to call many things sin. To stand in a place in which you can see clearly the constant violation of shalom around you, call it what it is, ask God for grace and mercy for yourself and others from within it, and pray for its repair, that's where I want to be.
PS: About Rahab, there's another story in the first chapter of Exodus that I reread recently in which the Hebrew midwives lied to the Pharoah about the Hebrew boys being born, saying that the Hebrew women gave birth so quickly that the babies were gone before the midwives could follow the Pharoah's orders to kill the males. The text says that God looked kindly on them and blessed the midwives with many children of their own.
One more thing to add into the mix: Dorothy Sayers' book "Mind of the Maker" has a great explanation of why people are so confused about laws and why people come to think of God as being someone who just wants to place restrictions around you.
Basically it comes down to there being natural laws and artificial laws. Natural laws are things that are unbreakable principles and generally self-enforcing. Laws of physics are included here, but also laws of human nature. If you lie a lot, you will have a hard time trusting other people. If you kill, you will lose appreciation for life.
Artificial laws are things that people have put in place to support the natural laws and hopefully stop them from being broken. But they should always mirror natural laws; if they do not then they aren't good. So there's a natural law that makes us try to be safe on the road in order to refrain from hurting/killing ourselves and others. But the artificial law comes along and codifies this because not everyone is going to follow the natural law and people want to minimize how much people get hurt.
Anyway, you should read it; it's in the first chapter or two. Very insightful.
Post a Comment