Putting the "Relation" in Relational Morality

I had two older sisters when I was born. The oldest is gone now, and has been for some time. I remember her growing up, when she was beautiful and bright. And I remember her toward the end, when things were different. Death begins looking for us the moment we are born, but sometimes we help it along. In her case, the help she offered was drugs. They didn't kill her. They just put her on a long, painful, downward slide. But that's not the point...

I also had an older brother. Maybe I still do. I haven't been able to find him in years. I remember him growing up. I remember that he was strong and confident. I was a weak, timid sort, bookish, often overweight, prone to being bullied. I remember my brother standing up for me when no one else would, or could. And I remember he had his faults. Perhaps chief among those faults was his stubbornness, a flaw that cost him two marriages and more than my heart can bear to name. But that's not the point...

And there's me, as flawed as my siblings in my own ways. Perhaps more. If I had the time and inclination, and the memory (it fades a bit these days), I could fill chapters and volumes with my sins, blunders, errors, missteps. By God's grace, I haven't incurred the type of costs my siblings have, but that doesn't mean that I won't pull a world class life-blooper tomorrow. If I do, I'll trust in God's grace, my faith in Him, and the support of my family, friends, and church. But that isn't the point...

So what is the point?

I was involved in a discussion recently on the subject of gay marriage with a group online. My major concern was not so much with the idea of gay marriage per se', but of the rights being lost to others to advance gay marriage. Regardless of that, the opposing viewpoint group seemed determined to believe that my views on rights was not the issue, but my views on gays.One woman in particular made a very heart-felt plea. Her son was gay apparently, and she was certain that if I had a gay child or family member, my attitude would change. I would understand. It would become clear to me.

So to that woman, and to everyone else, I say: I do understand. If I had a son or daughter, brother or sister, friend or relative, I would love them, and cherish them, and bless them and care for them. I would do for them everything that I would for a straight son or daughter or relative, because love is not constrained by such things. But neither does love change what is right and what is wrong.

The reason that God gave direction for the conduct of sex and marriage was not for His benefit, but for ours. His instruction is to promote happiness and health, and prevent harm. When we accept and encourage those we love to participate in sinful behavior in the name of "loving" them, we both dishonor God and harm those we love. And when we support a society that threatens people wish to stand by their faith, when we actively discourage them, then we hasten a society where suffering increases.

I have two daughters right now. If either of them are gay, they haven't mentioned it to me, but that isn't the point either. A gay lifestyle isn't any more or less of a sin than any other sin. So my daughters have their sins, and I have mine. I love them. They love me. But when I see them doing something wrong, I call them on it. They do the same for me. And that's what God does for us, because a love that leaves us on a path to suffering and destruction is no love at all.

Mat 5:18-19 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

A Really Bad Job?

A point was brought up in my Sunday school class yesterday that stirred a question in my mind: When Satan torments people, is part of it doing a job that God assigned him? Frankly, the idea that Satan had some kind of compulsion to inflict misery on people hadn’t occurred to me. I had always assumed that it was simply spite. Looking around online, however, seemed to indicate that the idea was somewhat common. I don’t know what the percentages are, but a notable amount of people think that punishment of the damned is at least part of Satan’s job description. While I don’t claim to be the last word in theological wisdom, I have my doubts, and here is why…

In the scriptures that describe hell, it is a place of torment. When people, unforgiven sinners, are suffering in hell, as in the parable of Lazarus and the beggar or Christ’s descriptions to the apostles, there is no mention of Satan or demons taking part. There is no need for them to do any work to make people in Hell suffer. Hell itself is doing the work. The scriptures do mention that hell was created for Satan and his demons, but not as a kingdom. It is a place of torment for them as well. From that standpoint, it is easy to understand why the devil pursues and mistreats those whom God loves. And that’s why I don’t think that Satan loves anyone. I am sure that He did once, an angel described as perfect for a time, but I don’t believe he does anymore.

And here’s the last line on this religious “Op-Ed” piece: I believe that Satan had a second chance. Maybe a third, fourth. Maybe he even received the proverbial “seventy-times-seven” chances. I believe this because I look at the completely evil things that “Godly men” such as King David did, and they still received forgiveness after repentance. Paul, Abraham, Jacob…the list goes on. The Bible is awfully short on perfect people. I count exactly one. And yet for each imperfect, hard-hearted, rebellious man who turns around, God gives a welcoming embrace. I find it hard to believe he made no provision for reconciliation with his earlier creations. Obviously, that isn’t authoritative. A war in heaven is a war among great powers. I am less than a small power, with an understanding to match. I only have faith in the nature of Him in whom I believe.

When "Closure" Becomes a Crass, Political Opening

It’s been over a week since the Grand Jury rendered a verdict in the Ferguson case. Looking at happenings in the area some evenings, you might think that it was never rendered at all. While the President and the Attorney General put on a late and unconvincing call for restraint, the usual suspects are making the circuit in talk shows and op-eds. Despite the findings of the Grand Jury, a vocal crowd insists that there should have been a trial. The fact that a Grand Jury convenes specifically to determine if the evidence warrants charges and a trial seems is met with blank stares or shouting, with an occasional helping of looting and tear gas on the side.

A number of justifications have been offered for the need of a trial. Some point to historic injustice in the area, as if the results of a show trial had the ability to change the past. Others hint that it will show the community that their cries had been heard, as though denying process to a lone police officer will somehow herald a better future. 

Perhaps the worst justification, or at least the one that I dislike the most hinges on the term “closure.” I was listening to Fox News the other day, and I believe that it was Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and Obama apologist, who indicated that a trial would have helped provide “closure” for the area. I’m not a clairvoyant by trade, so I am hesitant to say what the result of such a try might portend. I am an engineer, an examiner of data. Based on my observations, a trial might result in a number of things for the community, but closure? I think not.

Since the term was introduced into the pseudo-psychological babble that passes for analysis in some quarters, it has seemed to take on almost a sacred state, a religious significance. Those who achieve it find bliss. Those who fail remain in torment. It is pursued through meditation and ritual, taught as the ultimate goal. It is the be-all, end-all. The Christ, not for our own sins, but for the sins that life heaps upon us. It’s the balm for every conflict that life hands us that ends in something less than “happily ever after.”

It is a sham.

When I was growing up, “closure” referred to removing the access to something that was open. We had another term for the situations mentioned above: Acceptance. It required no meditation, no ceremony, no trials, no “understanding generations of anger.” (I still don’t by the way. I keep trying, but it makes no sense at all to me. If anyone can help, use the comment block.)

Acceptance was the power that God gave each and every person who asked, and more than a few who did not, to move forward when life dealt them a hard blow. And unlike “closure,” there was no pretense that it could or should be sought on a community level. It was personal, the same way love or hate or forgiveness is personal. While others can work to help or hinder the process, it always started and ended on the personal level. 

This idea that a trial will somehow aid Ferguson in achieving “closure” is simply wrong. If that were the case, the Grand Jury verdict would have worked just as well. That people both inside and outside the community vowed to protest regardless of what verdict was reached shows that closure is not the goal. For those who live to stir dissension, it never is.

While a show trial would not achieve closure for a community, there are possibilities that some find appealing. The easiest to foresee is the destruction of Officer Wilson. For as long as the trial went on, he would be hauled through every bit of slime the race mongers could dredge up, scourged as a symbol of all that is wrong with American justice, all the while doing nothing that could hope to improve it. It would probably ruin him financially. A trial of this nature would be a bit beyond a public defender, especially with the legal guns likely brought to bear. And afterward, with his finances in ruin, how could he recover? Who would hire him? For that matter, who will hire him? 

It’s often been said that a rising tide lifts all boats. I believe that is true. I also believe the opposite: When society reaches out to drag a single person down unfairly, so that diminishes all. It is a lesson well displayed in history, not that many bother with such things anymore. People believe what they wish much of the time. It was not so long ago that lynch mobs were a far too common sight in America. They too believed that they were carrying out “justice.” And if the word had meant anything to them, they might also have said that they were looking for “closure.”

Everything old is new again.