It's Not Enough To Be Right...

For those of you who were not aware, I just completed a major undertaking. I finished reading Les Miserables. The work was worth it! If you haven't read it, you're in for a treat once you get there. Since I just wrapped it up, I thought I'd share one of the ideas which jumped out at me from the book.

"It's not enough to be right. You have to be right for the right reasons." Dr. Bauman hammered this key idea into us at Summit's Semester program. Arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons leaves you with a weak foundation that ultimately will not support you. Victor Hugo pictured this in the character Javert.

To understand Hugo's picture though, we need to get to know Javert a bit. For Javert, right and wrong were determined by the state. If one was on the side of the state, then they were in the right and those opposed to it were in the wrong. To quote Hugo's description: "On the one hand he would say, 'A public official cannot be deceived; a magistrate is never wrong!' And on the other, "They are irremediably lost; no good can come of them.'"

Over the course of the book though, Javert's life intersects several times with Jean Valjean, the ex-convict whose life was turned around by his encounter with Bishop Myriel. Witnessing Valjean's changed life, including an act of mercy extended to Javert himself, leads to Javert to to rethink his view on the world. In the end, Javert's world is rocked:

"His ultimate anguish was the loss of all certainty. He felt uprooted. The code was no longer anything but a stump in his hand. He was dealing with scruples of an unknown species. Within him there was a revelation of feeling entirely distinct from the declarations of the law, his only standard hitherto...An entire new world appeared to his soul...a mysterious justice according to God going counter to justice according to men. In the darkness he could see the fearful rising of an unknown moral sun; he was horrified and blinded by it. An owl compelled to an eagle's gaze."

Javert had, generally speaking, arrived at the right view of the world. The government is designed to enforce God's rule. To the degree that it does, rebellion against it is rebellion against God. However, Javert's foundation was the assumption that the government is infallible and therefore the standard for right and wrong. Discredit that assumption, make God the foundation, and nothing makes sense anymore for Javert. "He felt uprooted...An owl compelled to an eagle's gaze."

There are two lessons here for us. First, why you believe what you believe is just as important as what you believe. We shouldn't be content to settle for what seems to be the right answer - our goal should be to know why it is the right answer. Second, we should remember where absolute truth resides - in God. As hard as we work to understand "why", we will inevitably go astray, or find places where we have gone astray in the past, or find that we don't understand "why" as much as we should. The fact is, these discoveries can be unsettling. Suddenly realizing that the house you had worked hard to build was built with cards can be deeply disturbing. Remembering that God is the source of truth can help us to realize that what we are experiencing is not the world falling apart, but us realigning with the world as God created it.

I've found myself in Javert's shoes before and it's a pretty safe guess that I'll be back in them before long. Odds are, you're in a similar boat. Let's learn from Javert's experience and realize that even after doing our due diligence in studying out why we believe something, we could be wrong. Unlike Javert, finding out that we were wrong should not destroy us. Instead, we can turn to God as the source of all Truth for the answers we need and build again on a solid foundation.

Have you had an "owl compelled to an eagle's gaze" experience before? If so, what have you learned from it - whether a change in your thinking or lessons for how to work with similar experiences in the future?

Roe v. Wade - An Object Lesson

Today is the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision which practically legalized abortion in the United States. Looking back on this decision, there is some value in evaluating it from the prism of what it means to be a human being. As we will see, how you see human beings and how you describe them has huge effects on how you treat those around you.

For the purpose of this post, I am going to assume that unborn babies are human. I'll grant that in a discussion about the morality of abortion this would be the key point. However, that is not the discussion that I'm aiming for in this post.

There are two basic ways to view human beings. They are either the highest entity in the world or they are the highest created creature. The difference between these two literally ends up being the difference between life and death.

When you hold to the first view of humanity, the foundation of the value system is strength - physical, mental, ability to build things ect. Whatever gives you an edge over those around you, that is what gives you value. After all, that's how humanity in the first place has been valued as the highest entity on the globe. Unfortunately, that also means that human beings which either have no value, no "edge" or ability to defend themselves, don't need to stay alive. From this view, the Roe v. Wade decision makes sense. If an unborn baby doesn't seem to be worth the costs of being born and raised - costs such as money, pain, effort, time - then why keep it alive? Kill it and save the expense.

The other view of humanity operates on the value system of the Creator. If humans are the highest creature, it is because the Creator values them as His highest creation. Taken from the Christian view of the world, the value that the Creator has placed on humanity is that it is made in his image. This being the case, to be human is to be valuable - irregardless of the practical value they appear to add to the world. From this perspective, the Roe v. Wade decision is a devastating tragedy. It is the legal permission to kill people - legal permission to destroy value.

Examining the merits of each viewpoint isn't the goal of this post - though it is something that you should do if you haven't by this point. Instead, the goal is to challenge us to pay more attention to how we define what it means to be human and then consider the results of our definitions. As esoteric as the question may sound, "What does it mean to be human" has serious practicality to all of our lives. Failing to answer this question and have a good reason for that answer leaves the floor wide open for others to answer it - and their answer might not be one that you will be able to live with.

What do you think it means to be a human and why have you come to that conclusion? How does this affect the way you interact with those around you? There are quite a few facets here - not all of them are as drastic as the example that my post centered around. Feel free to branch the conversation out to other aspects of what it means to be human by leaving a comment - your thoughts are very welcome!

Giver of Pain and Forgiveness?

When it comes to pain, the first impulse for most of us is to try and avoid it. This is certainly true for me and I'm assuming you'd probably agree. There might be some differences in how much pain we're willing to endure, but sooner or later we'd all have enough and look for the way out. This being the case, I found the following verse intriguingly counter-intuitive:

"The people did not turn to him who struck them, nor inquire of the LORD of hosts." (Isaiah 9:13 ESV)

A moment for context. Preceding verses (v. 8-12), inform us that Israel is facing God's judgement. In fact, there have been repeated judgments. Throughout this pain though, God expects Israel to run back to Him. Okay, I'll admit that this doesn't sound super foreign, after all, that's how repentance should work, right? It's certainly a familiar concept for most of people who have spent most time in church. Read that verse again though:

"The people did not turn to him who struck them..."

That is not the typical viewpoint that you will get of repentance. When repentance comes up in sermons or conversations, it will more likely be surrounded by descriptions of God's love and willingness to forgive. Those are both aspects of God's nature, but they are not the facet that Isaiah uses when looking at Israel's lack of repentance. Isaiah examines their response from the fact that God is the one dealing out the punishment. God inflicted the pain and Israel was supposed to run back to Him. I don't know about you, but I find running back to love and forgiveness much more appealing than running back to the source of pain and punishment.

Granted, these two concepts are not really separated like I have described them. Repentance involves turning back to God who has both punished us and desires to forgive us. However, I wonder how often we separate them and focus solely on the love and forgiveness and forget that God is also the one Who deals out justice on me. And in so doing, what have we lost from our knowledge of God that would impact how we live? For instance - consider the dichotomy that I presented above: punishment vs. love and forgiveness. Is God's punishment actually another facet of His love? If this is true, how should it effect our interactions with each other?

These are questions that I haven't thought all the way through before, so I don't necessarily have great answers for them. However, that's the advantage of starting a conversation, you don't need to have all the answers ahead of time! In other words, you are formally invited to join the conversation. Leave a comment with your thoughts - I'd be really interested in hearing them.

To restate them, here are some of the questions under consideration: What, if anything, is lost from our understanding of God when we ignore His role as corrector? Is God's love separate from his punishment? And, how should our lives change in light of the answers we give to these questions?