20080828

So, question.

Wait. First the set-up.

So typically, when a non-Christian polygamist converts, we are careful to neither encourage him to divorce his additional wives nor to only have sexual relations with just one of those wives (at least in those cultures in which polygamy is legal). In various times past we would have but through, I think, experience and careful thought, the consensus had shifted to support these new-found citizens of heaven rather than damage lives further through the putting away of wives.

So. Question.

How should the church advise converts who are part of homosexual marriages? Should they continue as an active member of a far-less-than-ideal union, as with the polygamists? Should we recommend divorce? How do the ethics work out here?

20071002

I didn't know what to do.

Thursday evening, we had some of the college-aged kids in our church over for a rousing game of Puerto Rico. During which I was punished round after round by game mechanics beyond my control. Some of you may rejoice to hear that. And yet, the stacking of odds against my gubernatorial skills with a colonial-era tropical island is not the subject at hand.

It's true. I am known for both the distraction and tangential. I'm wiley like that.

So here it is. There's this guy, this kid, who comes over for games. We'll call him Scraps for the sake of being Donald-Milleresque. And as it turns out. He's enlisting.

He strayed from his first choice, the marines, because I guess they didn't treat him that well. So he's joining the Navy. And Thursday night, he announced his intention to become a Navy SEAL. And it was at the point of coming to this revelation that I lost all sense of what to do.

In the pit of my stomach, I grew kind of sick. When I heard that he was joining the Navy, I imagined that he would be working at a desk on a carrier or something. Maybe as a communications officer's assistant, I don't know. But even though I couldn't convince myself to work for that corporation, I could see how some kid green behind the ears might think it an honourable occupation.

Kids are freakin' idealists like that. It's why we suit them up so easily to die for our causes.

But as a SEAL? A special ops guy? He'd be training to kill people with extreme prejudice. "Bad guys," sure. But also such-and-so much collateral damage as well. Women and children first has never been a dictate given more than glancing respect by The Great War Machine of History.

So did Scraps give any thought to the ethics of his choice? Is he happy to kill people he doesn't know for reasons he doesn't know, all because some politician pats him on the head afterward and says, "Good boy. Have a biscuit"? Really, I don't see how someone can justify signing up for military service for a plainly offense-oriented military. Signing up for our nation's defense? Yes. Good. Honourable. Et cetera. Signing up to bring war to foreign shores? That's butcher's work.

I've heard the reasoning before and none of it works. We kill for the greater good. We sacrifice a smaller number of innocents that a far greater number might live free. Uh-huh. How many would kill their mother or sister that a far greater number might live free. Not many, that's for sure. So then what makes it okay for you to kill someone else's mother or sister? Is it equally fine when they kill your mother or sister to free themselves from your oppression? Now wait... of course you wouldn't kill you own mother. But would you shoot the mother of your next-door neighbour if someone told you that it would help ten thousand live free and happy? A hundred thousand?

"But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?"

Okay, okay. I realize that wasn't playing fair. Using the Bible and quoting things that were clearly not meant to have any bearing on real life decisions. Ahem.

"Okay," you say. "But the U.S. military isn't just attacking because they're imperialists or anything? These are preemptive strikes against a country that was going to harm us. Possibly. Maybe. Or well, probably not." Alright, I know none of you are actually thinking that and that the whole ideology of preemptive strikes has mostly fallen out of favour amongst all but the most naive or vicious*, but I occasionally hear it raised so let's dispense with it please.

Imagine how our criminal law system would work if the police were allowed to do preemptive strikes. We would transgress from a democratic society under the rule of law into a oppressive state governed by fascist dogmas and false peace. Phillip K. Dick explored the idea in Minority Report (you may remember the Tom Cruise vehicle). It would be a nightmare for any who care for justice or freedom. Or both.

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, its a good thing justice is blind. Otherwise she'd be rolling over in her grave about now. And just because I can't help being a jerk about it:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

So anyway. I was baffled. I didn't know what to say to Scraps. I could have quietly mocked his choice or loudly condemned it. I could have asked him why he wanted to kill people he'd never met or I could have asked him what he thought about the ethical questions involved. I could have told him he was being stupid and what did he know about life or politics and blah blah blah. I could have asked him what Jesus would do. I could have asked him why he imagined that the uniform of a soldier was an honourable one. I could have done any of those things. But I didn't.

I was overwhelmed in my heart by the tragedy that he is willingly bringing upon himself and so I simply asked if everyone wanted to begin playing Puerto Rico. And I'm kind of ashamed of that.

*note: I know you think this is an ad hominem fallacy, but it's not. It's just the truth.

Honour the Emperor

After an interesting run of comments on a particular post over at Memoirs of a Samurai Barber, it seems the comment system broke. And try as I might, I could not fix it. So, in a fit of sentimentality, I'm going to post a blog all old-school, like we did back in the day. For those of you who weren't traversing across the consolidated bloginalia in the year 2000, it was common for one blogger to write a post and for other bloggers to respond to that post on their own sites rather than in the original poster's comments. Since, well, blogs didn't have comments back then. And in light of technical difficulties, I'm going to do just that.

In his original question, Johnny T asks for clarification on the Christian ethic in times when one's government is, well, evil. He uses the example of Nazi Germany, but inevitably draws us back to the inadequacies of the current administration in America. He asks about actions such as assassination, sabotage, espionage, defection, and the hiding of Jews. I think his questions have merit and will briefly outline my outlook on matters before answering his final question (which was posted after the system broke and hence, is only visible to me).

So then, essentially, the believer's interaction with the government that rules over him is this:

Though we are to regularly submit to even the most oppressive government, I do believe we are to break laws that prohibit us from doing good so long as we are willing to accept the consequences. Conversely, I believe we cannot actively seek the dissolution, through illegal means, or harm of said government.

I do not think we are to actively prevent the government from doing evil by ourselves doing evil (a la assassination of evil leaders), for that would clearly go against our command to "honour the emperor." Pretty much everything on John's laundry list seems inappropriate to the believer with the exception of hiding Jews; only offering succour to the enemies of a government seems to break the law because it prevents one from doing good.

While Johnny expresses his frustration with the difficulty in balancing something like the Golden Rule with our mandate to accept the authority of the government that God has seen fit to place over us - for whatever reasons are his - I don't see as much difficulty in the question. To this, Johnny responds:

The conflict will be clearer if we consider other areans of life besides war.

Immigration: in some states harboring an immigrant has become a felony, yet there are many churches in those states that break the law in order to take care of the immigrants. The same can be said in our state, though it isn't a felony here. You have a white family so this doens't come up much for you, but with my Wife's Philipino family, there is a lot of family here illegally. Yet I feel like taking care of family and not betraying family is more important that obeying the law.

Contributing to Pro-Palistinian charities. Now, contributing to many of these charities can be considered contributing to Terrorism, even though the Palistinians are the ones being constantly terrorised. This can be serious stuff. The last thing you want to do these days is get the Feds looking at you as an illegal enemy combatant -- you'll land yourself in the most terrorising interigation system in the world. Yet the Palistinians are in grave need.

I could think of more examples, but I hope you are getting my point. Submission to the governing authorities and helping our fellow humans are often in conflict.

To go back to the war examples, why would sabatoge be wrong for the defector to do but not wrong for soldier to do? Both acts destroy and kill in an attempt to give victory to one side of the war. Why doesn't the soldier have to love his enemy? It would seem that if we took that commandment as an absolute, all soldiers would be in sin. I don't think many conservative Christians are going to be absolute on this one.

If I was a German in Nazi Germany and I loathed what the Nazis were doing, I don't think my concsience would greive me too much for blowing up a gas tank at the ammo depot, or sniping commanding officers off duty.

Do you think that is wrong? Becuase now that I say it, I guess I'm not totally sure I could do that in good concisence. But for sure, it would be a tough decision for me either way.

I can't speak to the laws of the states and of felonies and misdemeanors, but what I can say is that if you run across a man in need and you are able to help him and yet you do not, you are not a good person. If the punishment for feeding and clothing your fellow man is that you be locked up for two or three years, then you will be locked up for two or three years. You did not sin in violating a law that would prevent you from loving your neighbour or enemy as yourself.

While I think the view you present of the Palestinian plight here is vastly simplified and perhaps a little naive, I believe you are free to give charity as you see fit. This example doesn't exactly fit - as I don't believe that Palestinian charities are yet illegal, but regardless, if you are giving to Palestine, I would suggest doing it through the church or through some organization with which you have firsthand experience. Charities, after-all, may be far from what we would expect them to be.

As for the comment that submission to authorities and helping our fellow man are often in conflict, I guess I can only shrug and say, "So?" I don't see this as a problem, as I've outline above how I, personally, reconcile the difficulties.

When Johnny referenced my stance on war, he's referring to the fact that I believe that governments have the right to wage war - though individuals do not. I also believe that, as there is no suggestion to the soldiers in the tyrannical Roman army that they should cease their service post-conversion, that contemporary believers may join themselves to the military if they choose (though I would not recommend it). As agents of the governing authority, the operate with the authority of their government. Therefore, Christians may go ethically into battle and kill the enemy of their government should their government command it (again, I would not recommend military service as the killing of men must weigh heavily on the soul of the believer). Further, I state that as an operative of a government, one make engage in espionage and sabotage - and yet, that an individual who is not deputized by the government under which he sits, bears no such privilege.

At this point, Johnny asks Why doesn't a soldier have to love his enemy? My answer: he does. I don't see a conflict here (after all, we always hurt the ones we love *kidding*). Really, though I think the balancing act would probably weigh heavily on one's soul across the years, I do think its possible to love your enemy even while you kill him. I also believe that a Christian has the privilege of rejecting that deputization - so long as they are happy to engage the consequences.

Now you should be able to ascertain why I believe that it would be wrong for a German citizen and believer to snipe commanding officers while they are off-duty, yet acceptable for a British soldier to do so. Essentially it comes down to the authority with which they are vested.