If all of this makes you uncomfortable because you are uncomfortable with situational ethics, I remind you that nearly every choice we make is dependent upon context. Wisdom is not about adhering to a set of rules no matter what. Wisdom is about knowing what is appropriate at the appropriate times. We can say that it seems wishy-washy and at risk of falling down a slippery slope, but the reality of life is that context matters.
In regard to violence, Tim Larkin, the founder of Target Focus Training (a form of self-defense that teaches you where/how to hit someone in specific places to injure someone who is trying to kill you) gives the following example of how context changes whether or not violence is evil or good (again, I'm paraphrasing). He says that if he walked up to someone at the grocery store and punched them in the liver and then stomped on their groin incapacitating them, Tim Larkin would be a violent sociopath. Everyone agrees that would be evil. He then says that if someone at the bar spilled beer on him and called him and his wife a bunch of expletives and then he punched that guy in the liver and then stomped on his groin incapacitating him, Tim Larkin would be a dangerous hothead and rightly incarcerated. I think everyone still agrees that this horrible overreaction would be evil. He then says that if Tim Larkin was in the building during the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and had a chance to punch the murderer in the liver and then stomp on his groin, saving the lives of many more children and teachers, then what he had done would be appropriate to the situation and completely warranted. Everyone (except the murderer) would be glad that he'd done it. In the first two instances, violence was evil. In the third instance, violence was at the very least necessary, and possibly even good in that particular situation. I agree with Tim Larkin on that one. If--God forbid--something like that ever happens at one of our schools I pray to God there's someone in there (even a Christian!) who knows how to and is willing to use force to save my kids' lives.
The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines situational ethics as
Here is just one of many examples that show that this is how Jesus operated: the expert in the Law that approached Jesus wanted to know which of the commandments--which part of the Law--was the most important. Jesus, however, thought differently about it. Jesus did not respond by picking a Law but rather choosing the higher purpose to which all of the Law must point. Here is how it reads in The Message:
Jesus was much more interested in the "pegs" or the higher purpose (higher moral law) than in the Law. He loved and followed the Law, but when he had to, he set particular laws aside in order to fulfill the purpose behind the Law. The Law listed out those foods which the people of God could not eat. Following these "kosher" laws showed that God's people were obedient to God. However, Jesus said that it isn't what people eat that defiles a person, but what they say and do. That is an example of Jesus caring more about the higher purpose behind the Law than the Law itself. Paul followed suit whenever there were some who were saying that it is always absolutely wrong to eat meat that was used in the sacrifices to pagan gods. Paul says that it depends on the situation. As long as you understand who the one true God is and it won't bother anyone with whom you're eating then go for it. Steak is just steak. It is right for you to eat that meat. It proves that you give no respect at all to pagan beliefs. But if you're in a situation where you're eating with someone who is extremely offended by this and doesn't think Christians should ever do this then, out of respect and in hopes of keeping the peace, you should save those particular steaks for another time. It would be wrong to eat that meat. It shows that you don't care about the feelings of your guests. So is it right or wrong to eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods? Well, that depends on the situation. What is always right is loving God and your neighbor.
When a group of men bring to Jesus the woman caught in adultery, the mob is right that the Law prescribes stoning her to death as the punishment. That's the Law. You can read it in Leviticus 20. The Law is absolute and must be followed to the "T" every time, right? Well, in this particular situation Jesus feels that mercy toward the woman, although it circumvents the Law, will better fulfill the "pegs" on which the Law hangs, will better fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law. Jesus doesn't say the Law is bad or obsolete. He does not dismiss it, but he does set it aside in this particular situation so as to better fulfill the purpose behind the Law. Of course, Jesus, being Savior and Lord, knows better than we do when a situation warrants that, but there are those very, very rare lifesaving times when we must discern whether it is better to follow the Law or to fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law.
Captain Phillips only does two things in the film that could be called violent. The first is that he makes sure his crew knows that one of the pirates is bare foot so they can put down some broken glass to hurt the pirate's feet. The plan works. Later in the film Captain Phillips pushes that same pirate (don't feel sorry for him; he has an AK-47 pointed at someone's head) into the ocean in the middle of the night. Eventually it is the Navy SEALS that do the violent deed of killing the pirates, but it was, after all, Captain Phillips who alerted the military of what was going on. Again, you can't say that killing is always an evil sin and then be okay with other people doing it on your behalf. It's not okay to hire other people to sin for you. Captain Phillips avoided unwarranted violence but he participated in and relied upon warranted violence. If I had a chance to prevent the machine gun toting drugged up pirates from boarding the boat at any means I'd use any of those means, and if they made it onto the boat anyway I would have no problem taking advantage of an opportunity to take down the pirates. Is saving my own life and the lives of others from men doing evil an evil in itself? I really have a hard time believing it is.
In regard to violence, Tim Larkin, the founder of Target Focus Training (a form of self-defense that teaches you where/how to hit someone in specific places to injure someone who is trying to kill you) gives the following example of how context changes whether or not violence is evil or good (again, I'm paraphrasing). He says that if he walked up to someone at the grocery store and punched them in the liver and then stomped on their groin incapacitating them, Tim Larkin would be a violent sociopath. Everyone agrees that would be evil. He then says that if someone at the bar spilled beer on him and called him and his wife a bunch of expletives and then he punched that guy in the liver and then stomped on his groin incapacitating him, Tim Larkin would be a dangerous hothead and rightly incarcerated. I think everyone still agrees that this horrible overreaction would be evil. He then says that if Tim Larkin was in the building during the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and had a chance to punch the murderer in the liver and then stomp on his groin, saving the lives of many more children and teachers, then what he had done would be appropriate to the situation and completely warranted. Everyone (except the murderer) would be glad that he'd done it. In the first two instances, violence was evil. In the third instance, violence was at the very least necessary, and possibly even good in that particular situation. I agree with Tim Larkin on that one. If--God forbid--something like that ever happens at one of our schools I pray to God there's someone in there (even a Christian!) who knows how to and is willing to use force to save my kids' lives.
The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines situational ethics as
the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action must be judged in relation to the particular situation or context in which it occurs. The stress is on relationships and character rather than universal rules. Love is primary.A lot of Christians are uncomfortable with this, and understandably so. After all, God's Word is eternal. We can't just change it when we want to, when it fits our particular desires. I wholeheartedly agree with that criticism. Purely situational ethics would say that there is no moral absolute that we must follow. What is moral and immoral is completely dependent upon the situation. Judging from some of your comments to me, this is what some of you think I am assenting to. That is not the case. I do not think that we can follow God's Word sometimes and not at other times. If you think that's what I'm saying, either I'm not writing it correctly or you're not reading it correctly. What I am saying is that God's Word/Will has two layers: the Law and the ultimate higher purpose behind the Law. Most of the times the Law adequately leads to fulfillment of the higher purpose, but in rare situations (generally life or death situations) the Law does not adequately lead to fulfillment of the higher purpose. What I am saying is that in those very rare situations when we must choose between following the Law or fulfilling the higher purpose behind the Law, we (like Jesus) must choose the higher purpose. So I am not saying that there is no absolute morality. What I am saying is that the Law itself is not the absolute morality. The Law points toward the absolute morality. The higher purpose behind the Law is the absolute morality. Where did I get this? Well, from Jesus, of course.
Here is just one of many examples that show that this is how Jesus operated: the expert in the Law that approached Jesus wanted to know which of the commandments--which part of the Law--was the most important. Jesus, however, thought differently about it. Jesus did not respond by picking a Law but rather choosing the higher purpose to which all of the Law must point. Here is how it reads in The Message:
Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.”That's a good way of putting it: pegs. So what I am saying is that the "pegs" are absolute and never change regardless of the situation. How we live out those "pegs" can change in different situations. The Apostle Paul says something similar in Galatians 5. This does not say that the Law is obsolete or unimportant. All it says it that the Law is subservient to the higher purpose behind the Law: love God and love neighbor. In very, very rare occasions we may have to put that which hangs on the "peg" aside in order to fulfill the purpose of the "peg" itself.
Jesus was much more interested in the "pegs" or the higher purpose (higher moral law) than in the Law. He loved and followed the Law, but when he had to, he set particular laws aside in order to fulfill the purpose behind the Law. The Law listed out those foods which the people of God could not eat. Following these "kosher" laws showed that God's people were obedient to God. However, Jesus said that it isn't what people eat that defiles a person, but what they say and do. That is an example of Jesus caring more about the higher purpose behind the Law than the Law itself. Paul followed suit whenever there were some who were saying that it is always absolutely wrong to eat meat that was used in the sacrifices to pagan gods. Paul says that it depends on the situation. As long as you understand who the one true God is and it won't bother anyone with whom you're eating then go for it. Steak is just steak. It is right for you to eat that meat. It proves that you give no respect at all to pagan beliefs. But if you're in a situation where you're eating with someone who is extremely offended by this and doesn't think Christians should ever do this then, out of respect and in hopes of keeping the peace, you should save those particular steaks for another time. It would be wrong to eat that meat. It shows that you don't care about the feelings of your guests. So is it right or wrong to eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods? Well, that depends on the situation. What is always right is loving God and your neighbor.
When a group of men bring to Jesus the woman caught in adultery, the mob is right that the Law prescribes stoning her to death as the punishment. That's the Law. You can read it in Leviticus 20. The Law is absolute and must be followed to the "T" every time, right? Well, in this particular situation Jesus feels that mercy toward the woman, although it circumvents the Law, will better fulfill the "pegs" on which the Law hangs, will better fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law. Jesus doesn't say the Law is bad or obsolete. He does not dismiss it, but he does set it aside in this particular situation so as to better fulfill the purpose behind the Law. Of course, Jesus, being Savior and Lord, knows better than we do when a situation warrants that, but there are those very, very rare lifesaving times when we must discern whether it is better to follow the Law or to fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law.
Captain Phillips only does two things in the film that could be called violent. The first is that he makes sure his crew knows that one of the pirates is bare foot so they can put down some broken glass to hurt the pirate's feet. The plan works. Later in the film Captain Phillips pushes that same pirate (don't feel sorry for him; he has an AK-47 pointed at someone's head) into the ocean in the middle of the night. Eventually it is the Navy SEALS that do the violent deed of killing the pirates, but it was, after all, Captain Phillips who alerted the military of what was going on. Again, you can't say that killing is always an evil sin and then be okay with other people doing it on your behalf. It's not okay to hire other people to sin for you. Captain Phillips avoided unwarranted violence but he participated in and relied upon warranted violence. If I had a chance to prevent the machine gun toting drugged up pirates from boarding the boat at any means I'd use any of those means, and if they made it onto the boat anyway I would have no problem taking advantage of an opportunity to take down the pirates. Is saving my own life and the lives of others from men doing evil an evil in itself? I really have a hard time believing it is.
Here is the rub for me: things get messy when you are responsible for the lives of other human beings. It is easy to say that violence is never okay, even in self-defense--if you're the only one who will be harmed by that stance. It's not as easy to say that when you have a family and someone legitimately threatens the life of your family. Just up the road in Columbus a couple of weeks ago, a single mom heard noise in her house. She awoke to find a man wearing clown mask standing over her sleeping teenage son holding a large knife. She shot the man--who turned out to be a teenager--and he died. Is it tragic that a young person did something so frightening and violent to another human being that he ended up getting himself killed? Yes. Did the mother commit evil in protecting her son? Does she need to ask forgiveness for saving her son's life? I do not believe so. It is also easy to say that violence is never justified when you have not been given responsibility for 300 million citizens. Part of the reason the government exists is to protect the citizens. How can you protect the citizens under your charge if violence is completely taken off the table? When you are responsible for other people, that responsibility may sometimes make pacifism impossible.
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson (a Presbyterian), who had held the USA out of WWI as long as he could, spoke to a joint session of congress to ask for a declaration of war against Germany, who was sinking American ships and trying to talk Mexico into declaring war on the USA, said "It is a fearful thing to lead this peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance, but the right is more precious than peace..." The right is more precious than peace. Well isn't peace what is right? Well, most of the time. But not in all situations. Please don't get me wrong. I do not advocate lying or violence, but I do advocate loving God and loving your neighbors and I understand that sometimes that gets messy. I truly believe that the peacemakers are blessed. But sometimes as faithful and diligent as peacemakers are, peace cannot be had. It is then that the "time for peace" becomes the "time for war" as Ecclesiastes 3 describes. Peace cannot be had at all costs because that cost is made up of the lives of others. Violence is over all a tragic result of our sinful and fallen world. Yet ironically, within our sinful and fallen world, I (along with Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, and Dr. Darrell Cole) believe that in very rare situations violence is sometimes converted into a good when it resists evil and protects the innocent. I pray that I never have to use it, but if I wake up and there's someone in my house trying to harm my family I will do what needs to be done and I won't do evil so that good may come of it. I'll do something good to protect my family from evil.
That's just my point of view. Take it or leave it. I know many of you are uncomfortable with these views. None of this necessarily reflects the views of First Presbyterian Church or the Presbyterian Church (USA). If nothing else, perhaps this series of posts has made you think about something you've never thought about. Those of you who know me know that I am a very peaceful person. The movie Captain Phillips just made me wonder where the limits of my peacefulness might be.
Thanks for reading. We'll get into some much lighter fare next week. Maybe I'll write about our new puppy.
Peace,
Everett
Thanks for reading. We'll get into some much lighter fare next week. Maybe I'll write about our new puppy.
Peace,
Everett
