Setting: Two friends, sitting around a living room of a Sunday afternoon.
Pieter: Hey, let me ask you something, an ethical hypothetical if you will.
Theophilus: Shoot.
Pieter: Ok, say one day a guy’s driving along, minding his own business, when he sees a person apparently stranded by the side of the road.
Theophilus: Uh-huh.
Pieter: Now, there doesn’t seem to be any urgency really, let alone any injury, but the man has a bit of time so he offers to give the stranded person a lift.
Theophilus: I’m with you.
Pieter: So just imagine that the person he picks up is a youngish teenager, say 16. He seems to be nice enough, and grateful enough for the lift, but there’s one problem: the kid swears like a sailor. In fact, he swears like a boat-load of drunken sailors who’ve been at sea and away from any civilizing influence for over a year.
Theophilus: Hmmm. I get the picture. So what of it?
Pieter: Well let’s assume, for the sake of discussion at least, that this language really bugs the man –the owner of the car – say even that the man is a really religious person, a pious man, and that the kid isn’t just swearing but using the Lord’s name in vain left and right.
Theophilus: Ok, I get it, he feels uncomfortable. What’s the question?
Pieter: Well, what should the driver do?
Theophilus: Keep driving.
Pieter: But remember just who is doing the favor for whom. It’s the driver’s car, the driver’s time, which he is employing selflessly in the service of this kid.
Theophilus: And for that he is no doubt to be commended.
Pieter: Right! So here he is, acting the part of the Good Samaritan and all, and this kid is making him feel really awkward and, well more than awkward, he’s really deeply offended.
Theophilus: I see.
Pieter: So, well, here’s the crux of it – doesn’t the driver have the right to ask the kid to cut it out or, well, get out and find another ride?
Theophilus: Ahhh, I see now. So the question is whether or not the owner of the car has a right to expect, and then demand a certain level of moral behavior within his sphere, his personal space.
Pieter: Yes, I suppose.
Theophilus: Well of course we’re leaving aside the question of whether or not the language truly is immoral, or the relative immorality of this versus that language.
Pieter: For now.
Theophilus: Then we are just asking whether, assuming the owner of the car believes the language to be immoral, does he or does he not have the right to expect and demand his moral boundaries be respected within his personal space.
Pieter: Exactly.
Theophilus: Well, what’s really at issue? Are these two the only people in the car?
Pieter: Yes.
Theophilus: So it’s not a question of protecting any influence over others. If there were perhaps a small child in the back seat, it could be argued that the owner is merely concerned over the child’s coming to imitate the assumed immoral language.
Pieter: No, that’s not a factor here.
Theophilus: Alright. Well what’s the concern? Is the man concerned that he will come to emulate the immoral and impious speech? Maybe he’s afraid he’ll hear a certain turn of phrase a dozen times and it will slip into his thought patterns some time down the road?
Pieter: Certainly not! As I said, the man is very pious. Further, he’s not a young man, so it’s highly unlikely that his behavior could be affected in any way by this kid’s. No, for the sake of discussion, assume that it’s impossible the passenger’s behavior would in any way affect that of the driver.
Theophilus: Humph. Well I must confess, I don’t see the problem.
Pieter: So the driver would be within his rights?
Theophilus: No, I don’t see why the driver cares, let alone is offended.
Pieter: But he’s the going out of his way to help out. It would be a slap in the face to have to sit there and endure something so offensive!
Theophilus: Why take offense? The passenger is not swearing at the driver, not insulting him, or threatening him in any way correct?
Pieter: Not directly.
Theophilus: Well how would he be offended indirectly? How does he take offense period?
Pieter: I mean, the use of the Lord’s name is one of the Ten Commandments for crying out loud!
Theophilus: True, but first of all we’re not talking about the degree of offense, whether this word or that word is a little bit worse than that one, we are assuming just that the man believes the speech to be immoral. Secondly, since the man is religious, I think it’s safe to assume he believes the source of that moral standard to be God himself.
Pieter: Indeed.
Theophilus: Right, so since the standard is God’s would not the offense also be God’s?
Pieter: Of course, God would… I mean the man would believe God objects to any immorality.
Theophilus: Yes, of course. Now if we were talking about one of the other Commandments, like the one forbidding theft, then we’d perhaps be having a different conversation, maybe the man would have a certain right to defend his property (then again, maybe not come to think of it), but in this instance certainly, since no one is being harmed, it seems clear to me that the only party with any right to take offense is God himself. And I guess I would assume He can stick up for himself.
Pieter: Of course, but…
Theophilus: But here’s what I’m really concerned about, I know that for myself, that when I am in the company of others who don’t respect a certain moral view that is important to me, I slide frighteningly quickly from merely taking note of the fact, to judging them in my heart.
Pieter: Hmmm.
Theophilus: So what I would ask the man – the owner, assuming he were seeking my opinion – is whether or not he is perhaps in some danger of committing the grave error of judging another’s soul. In this case, the man could be seen as presuming God’s prerogatives in two ways: he is taking offense where the offense is God’s alone, and his is judging the soul of a fellow creature of God’s, a role God is said to be fairly protective of.
Pieter: Well I wouldn’t go that far.
Theophilus: How far would you go?
Pieter: I just mean that the man isn’t condemning the kid or threatening him with hellfire or anything, so come on, lighten up a bit!
Theophilus: Well the question at hand is a moral or maybe, for this man, a purely religious one, so let’s deals with it on that basis. I’m not sure what I’d say to the man if he were just some guy offended by - maybe the political opinions of his passenger, but since we are discussing the offense purely on religious terms, we should take that angle to look at the root of the issue.
Pieter: Maybe.
Theophilus: Well you’ve said that the man is pious, a Christian no doubt?
Pieter: That he is. Yes, a very committed Christian.
Theophilus: Right, well we don’t need to address what a Christian believes about the Ten Commandments, and in any event we are still assuming that the speech violates the man’s moral/religious principles regardless.
Pieter: Of course.
Theophilus: Well then what would scripture say to the man’s question?
Pieter: Which one?
Theophilus: The one about what he should do in the situation.
Pieter: I think the man should insist that the moral guideline be respected.
Theophilus: Fine, but does scripture say that? Does anything command him to do that other than his own feelings? Is a Christian obligated to object to others not following his moral precepts in his presence? Is he even permitted to do so in these cases?
Pieter: Why ever not?
Theophilus: Why indeed. Well there’s a passage that’s leaping to mind, something to do with Christians who have different moral standards and how not to do things that could cause another to stumble.
Pieter: I think I know which one you’re talking about. So what?
Theophilus: Well, hang on a minute; I’m going to find the passage online here …. Ok, yeah, this is it. It’s in Romans, chapter 14. Paul is apparently writing to people, fellow believers, who have differing views on things like dietary restrictions and the observance of various holy days and things like that. Secondary issues to the faith, I think it would be safe to say.
Pieter: Probably. But you said that doesn’t matter – that the severity of offense is beside the point.
Theophilus: Quite right. It’s not relevant to address how egregious the offense is maybe in God’s eyes, but it’s relevant to note that the issue before Paul is secondary because, just like in our hypothetical, we aren’t talking about harming others for example. If Paul were talking about differences of opinion as to the morality of theft or murder, I’m just guessing he’d draw a pretty firm line.
Pieter: Alright, duly noted.
Theophilus: So, back to the passage, what Paul is really doing is saying two different things at once. He says that, in regards to food for example, he is persuaded that there is no such thing as unclean food. But he doesn’t expect everyone to share his opinion and he definitely doesn’t tell others to violate their consciences on the subject. So, on the one hand, he’s telling those with the stricter standard to keep their practice in faith but not to judge others who don’t also follow it. On the other hand, he tells those with the looser standards not to be a stumbling block for the others, that is, not to eat the objectionable food in the presence of those who object.
Pieter: Precisely, so the person should try not to give offense right?
Theophilus: Well of course, but the question is, Who gets to say that, and to whom?
Pieter: Go on.
Theophilus: Well this is Paul, right, and he’s writing to different factions within the Church. Which is to say, being one with authority in the Church, he is writing to those who are obligated, at least to listen to him, if not submit to his wisdom. Moreover, with that authority, he is saying two distinct things to each of two different factions. He says to those with the looser standards, whom he labels the strong and among whose number he counts himself, to not be a stumbling block, but, to those with the stricter standards, whom he calls weaker, he repeatedly commands them to withhold judgment. In fact! Look here; he says that apparently, for some things at least, ‘it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.’ Ha! Paul, that old moral relativist at it again!
Pieter: Now it’s my turn to say ‘Humph!’
Theophilus: Well, again the main point is that he is counseling different things to different people. To the strict he counsels keeping faith and humility; to the lax, he advises patience and perhaps shared accountability. And here’s where this seems relevant to the issue at hand. The owner of the car is the one with the stricter standard. If he calls himself a Christian then Paul’s word must at the very least be accorded a high level of respect, whose advice to someone in what seems just like the man’s situation, is to withhold judgment.
Pieter: Alright, but wouldn’t he also say to the other person to not be a stumbling block?
Theophilus: Of course…
Pieter: See!
Theophilus: …If they both submitted to the same moral or religious authority. If Paul had two members of the Church arguing over the boundaries of appropriate language, then certainly, he would say to the one, “judge not,” and to the other, “don’t cause your brother to stumble.” But this is key: the two people in the car do not share the same standard let alone the same authority. Well, at least they don’t acknowledge the same authority.
Pieter: But that can’t be right. Swearing is one thing and breaking a clear commandment is another! That’s not debatable for a Christian.
Theophilus: Right you are.
Pieter: See!
Theophilus: …For a Christian. It seems like what you’re saying now is that using the Lord’s name in vain is not one of those issues for which Paul would say differences should be respected. But the fact that the passenger is not himself a Christian, or not known to be one, puts him in precisely the same position as the strong Christian in Paul’s letter. Which is to say: he is innocent of the law. Innocent perhaps due to his utter ignorance of the standard.
Pieter: Now you lost me.
Theophilus: The passenger is innocent in regards to his use of language, even so far as using the Lord’s name in vain, in the same way that the strong Christian without use for holy days and special diets is; his conscience does not recognize the standard.
Pieter: (Grumbles.)
Theophilus: Paul would not enjoin a non-Christian to not be a stumbling block to another person whom he does not yet recognize as a brother in Christ. It’s a question of standing. If Paul believed he had any spiritual authority he would certainly advise the kid to hold his tongue out of respect for some issues and out of obedience for others. And the man could do likewise, but only if the kid is a fellow Christian with whom he has some standing, maybe a friend, relative or fellow Church member. But… but… to the owner, who is a Christian, Paul’s advice, I think, would be unchanged. He would say “judge not.”
Pieter: But certainly the passenger ought to become a Christian.
Theophilus: I’m guessing Paul would agree with you there.
Pieter: So…
Theophilus: So, is the best way to preach conversion by starting out correcting someone’s vocabulary?
Pieter: (Sighs.) You keep dancing around it. I’m just staking out a simple view and you keep moving the ground underneath things.
Theophilus: You give me more credit than I’m due.
Pieter: I just mean that you’re good at scoring debate points, but I’m not convinced.
Theophilus: Of what?
Pieter: That a person going out of his way to help another person doesn’t have the right to expect not to be offended in the process.
Theophilus: Put it this way: I take it for granted that for a Christian at least, it is a requirement to never give offense to anyone else without a compelling reason; unless there’s some greater good being aimed at perhaps.
Pieter: So now the Christian is the one doing the offending? He’s the one doing the good deed!
Theophilus: Well, think about it. We’ve agreed that this kid is clueless. He doesn’t intend offense. He has no standard whatever with respect to the use of the Lord’s name, let alone simple ‘swear words.’
Pieter: That’s the problem!
Theophilus: Well, perhaps for him. But again, within the bounds of the example, he is with respect to language as Paul is to food: without a standard. He could be wrong about this, but he is utterly innocent of violating any standard of his own as he has none! If God has a standard then God will take care of it. I can think of no way for the Christian to communicate his discomfort – his objection – without giving offense; without inevitably causing the kid at least the feeling of being judged.
Pieter: Now you have the man being everyone’s judge again.
Theophilus: Well, what other reason would he have for voicing his objection? I think we’ve established that no one can take offense but God, the same individual with the sole right to judge. No one is being harmed or even tempted to sin in any way. So the background expectation of all Christians to not offend or insult is still in place.
Pieter: No, no, no! The man is uncomfortable, and in his own car, on his own time, which he is using to help others who turn around and offend him while he’s at it!
Theophilus: Well, if he’s merely uncomfortable, I think he should deal with it. If that’s the only issue, I believe the prior expectation to not offend holds. The Christian needs a non-self-interested reason to trump the always binding injunction to love and respect his neighbor.
Pieter: Look, you’re being awfully hard on this guy. Now you have him needing to constantly run around helping out anyone in the least way needy, exhausting his personal resources in the process and not even allowed to so much as open his mouth to express his personal preferences.
Theophilus: Yah, it almost sounds like allowing oneself to be sacrificed for the good of others doesn’t it?
Pieter: Don’t be cute.
Theophilus: No, I’m not being cute. I’m completely serious. Jesus didn’t invite his followers to just occasionally give away some of their disposable resources in order to feel a little better about themselves, he commanded his disciples to follow him in the kind of life which he led, which was one of total self-surrender to God expressed mainly through service of others, others who most of the time not only didn’t appreciate it, but also might insult you in the process, heck, they might even just kill you for it!
Pieter: Well we don’t all have to be Jesus.
Theophilus: True enough. Thank God for forgiveness.
Pieter: It seems to me that now you are the one judging the Christian man. And ironically enough, you’re judging him for his being judgmental. Who are you to judge?
Theophilus: Well it’s true, someone could easily be tempted to judge this man and thereby fall into the same trap I am counseling him to avoid.
Pieter: You’re not going that easy on him to be sure.
Theophilus: Well, if I judged him, then I would undoubtedly need forgiveness. And hopefully, I would follow my own advice and not step in to give him said advice unless…
Pieter: Unless?
Theophilus: …Unless he asked for it, or unless I thought I had sufficient standing in our relationship to offer it. In this hypothetical I’ve been assuming the man asked me for my opinion.
Pieter: Well he did, that’s true.
Theophilus: Far from judging the man, I intend (you know those things paving the road to hell), I intend, to be judging the standard by which the man and myself would both measure ourselves. What is at issue, it seems to me, in this discussion is by what standard a Christian is called to measure him or herself, not in how well or poorly any individual actually measures up. Of course all of us fall short. Of course the differences between the way any two people fall short is insignificant in the long run. But when one is talking about the standard, it is important to be precise, lest everything else measured by a faulty standard suffers. The danger for the moralist or religious person is primarily the pride of seeming to more closely measure up. Just look at how Jesus dealt with the religious leaders in his time, for acting like they were relatively better off. For me, the standard is Christ, and often that is interpreted for us through the writings of scripture. See, the point is that anyone who is in the position of defending their own behavior – whether the man while judging the kid, or someone else while judging the man’s judgments – is in very serious danger of trying to set up the standard to their own benefit. I take it for granted the self-justification is one of the more dangerous temptations for humankind but is especially so for the religious person.
Pieter: Hmmm.
Theophilus: But even if we hypothetically cut the man all the slack in the world, and assume he is as pure as the driven snow, that it would be impossible for him to presume to judge anyone else, we are still back to our earlier concern.
Pieter: And what was that?
Theophilus: The fact that, for the Christian, there needs to be the assumption of first doing nothing that runs counter to love of one’s neighbor, including simple respect and avoiding the giving of offense, without a strong reason. There’s also the not insignificant missional concern.
Pieter: Oh boy, now what?
Theophilus: Well, as I said before the fact that if one’s selfless motive is to seek conversion, one needs to be mindful of how the other party is likely to receive the overture. If a Christian approaches someone with the opening tactic of correcting their speech, how likely is that person to be interested in the person’s religion and how likely is he to write the person off as just another hypocrite?
Pieter: Now you’re calling the guy names.
Theophilus: Not necessarily, I’m not calling the person a hypocrite, just noting that given the relative prevalence of religious hypocrisy, an opening move of correcting someone’s speech is not very pragmatic and might further confirm the person in their rejection of religion, or that particular religion, as a whole.
Pieter: Well.....
Theophilus: Look, it’s this simple. To justify communicating a moral standard to another person, one either needs to have standing as a friend or authority, or one must have a compelling reason to justify what I take to be the normative posture for Christian action: that of putting the self-interest of others ahead of one’s own. An example of this would maybe be seeking to avoid some harm to another person – which could be oneself or a third party.
Pieter: Right.
Theophilus: And I think we’ve established that there is no harm to another person or to the Christian man in this situation.
Pieter: I guess.
Theophilus: And there is clearly no standing of relationship or authority between the parties…
Pieter: Yeah.
Theophilus: So, what other consideration could there possibly be?
Pieter: Look, that’s very impressive and all, but I say, if it were my car and my time, I don’t need to go out my comfort zone to keep some other person from feeling bad!
Theophilus: Well, that may be ultimately true, but it’s hard to see how Paul or anything else in the gospel would support that view.
Pieter: I have rights over my stuff.
Theophilus: Hmm, that strikes me as a very American view, but not a very Christian one.
Pieter: Oh great, now we’ll blame America for everything.
Theophilus: No, it’s just to say that American ideals are very self-centered. The whole structure of the government is designed to protect people’s right to be as selfish as they care to be as long as they don’t harm anyone else’s right to be selfish.
Pieter: What’s wrong with that?
Theophilus: Well it’s outside the scope of this conversation to say, and perhaps it is the least bad way to set up a civil government, but it’s hard to see how one could square basing a stand upon this kind of demand for private sovereignty with the Christian view. Take for example the Reformed tradition, where that tradition’s view of personal sovereignty is expressed in The Heidelberg Catechism’s question and answer number one.
Pieter: Oh, do enlighten me.
Theophilus: Well, the response to the question of what is to be the Christian’s only comfort in life and in death is that, “I am not my own, but belong in body and in soul, in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.” The view here would be that we do not properly speaking ‘own’ anything, not even our very selves. (How’s that for an American heresy!) Instead, we are merely stewards of everything we are given, including our life and health.
Pieter: Oh, and I suppose you live up to this?
Theophilus: By no means! That’s kind of the point. No one really lives up to it. Again we’re talking about the standard by which actions are measured. We are not to judge, but neither are we to excuse, least of all ourselves. If we judge others, we preempt God’s judgment; if we excuse ourselves, we preempt God’s forgiveness.
Pieter: Well isn’t that profound.
Theophilus: Yes, actually, but I’m obviously not the one making this stuff up.
Pieter: Look, I admit that you’re good at this. You even seem to enjoy this, but that doesn’t make you right.
Theophilus: What would make a view right?
Pieter: I don’t have time for this now. Really, I don’t want to keep arguing. I still think I’m right and nothing you can say would convince me otherwise.
Theophilus: (Sighs.)
No comments:
Post a Comment