ok, but do they really?

The Preamble: I was having a chat with a friend of mine the other day about the recent Saddleback Presidential Forum that was aired on CNN when he brought up the mind-numbingly complex, hot-button-of-all-hot-button issues: abortion. During the forum Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, asked both Senators Obama and McCain about their particular impressions of Roe v. Wade and the current debate between the so-called "pro-life" crowd and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. Now - I'm not going to get into too much about the actual debate on the social/political/moral issue of abortion, but I mention this conversation because it rekindled the desire in me to write about the single most important ethical question of human history. I don't think that many people would argue - regardless of whether you're "pro-life" or "pro-choice" - that the fewer abortions the better. I mean, even every "pro-choice" advocate I've met has been adamant that they would like to see less abortions (even no abortions) if at all possible. So I think I'm on somewhat solid ground when I say that it would take a very inhumane personality to enjoy the fact that we've had over 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. But the ethical question that came up was not really about abortion or any specific "hot-button" issue, but rather this one: do the ends justify the means?

The Case: This, to me, really is the most important question we can ask of ourselves as individuals, as social groups, as a country, and as a race. This question is as central to our worldview as a question can be and if you truly ask yourself this question when debating an ethical problem - I can nearly guarantee that you will find yourself unsatisfied with much of the commonly accepted answers. While this post is truly about asking the question, I do have some thoughts on it that I would like to, briefly, share.

During the course of the conversation (mentioned above) over abortion, my friend referred to the current situation as a "holocaust" and likened it to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and, depending on your point of view, the death of 40 million unborn babies (or "fetuses" if you prefer) could be perceived, legitimately, as a holocaust of sorts. I, personally, hope to refrain from that kind of potentially inflammatory rhetoric simply because of the fact that the rhetoric is inflammatory. More to the point, however, he made the point that it is incumbent upon the morally upright in this country (i.e. a "conservative" or "evangelical" Christian) to fight the "holocaust" of abortion via the political, legislative, and judicial avenues in this country in the same way that it was the responsibility of the morally upright to fight the Nazi regime and "kill Hitler." This is where the question turned from morality to ethics.

He was, I'm sure, assuming that I would never disagree with the commonly held assumption that it was the right thing for the U.S. to jump into WWII and fight the Nazis back to Berlin. He was very shocked to find out that I do not agree with that commonly held assumption. I suppose I could be more clear about it: I do not believe that the prosecution of World War II by any of the so-called "Allied" nations was an appropriate response to the atrocities and crimes propagated by the Nazi regime in Germany. I am not particularly fond of U.S. military campaigns in World War II, despite the "good" it achieved by ridding the world of one of history's most notoriously evil dictators and ending a very unquestionable Holocaust. That might make me "unpatriotic" or even a "traitor", I suppose you'll have to decide that for yourself. I cannot support the actions of the U.S. government in World War II (or any other war for that matter) because I do not believe the ends justify the means.

Allow me to explain. Let's take the war out of the context for a moment and just go to, arguably, the central goal of the war: killing Hitler. Let's say it was a matter of just killing Hitler to end the war: kill one evil man to save millions of lives (innocent, guilty, or otherwise). Would saving 100 million lives (a good "end") be justified by the means of killing one man? I have no doubt that most people would respond with an enthusiastic "YES!" Ok, that's understandable. But let's up the number to 100. What then? Yes? How about 1,000? Still feeling good? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? How about letting 75,000,000 men, women, and children die in order to save the lives of, potentially, 1.925 billion others? Is that still a fair trade? Do the ends still justify the means? There were over 51 countries on Earth that we directly affected by World War II and they represented nearly 2 billion people in 1939. By the end of the war nearly 73 million people had died. That was almost 4% of the world's population in 1939! As individuals, as a country, and as a race we answered "yes" in 1939 and four people out of every hundred died because of it.

World War II represents one of the most catastrophic and multi-faceted failures in all of human history, but it certainly isn't the only one. This fundamental ethical evaluation does not only apply to war, either. It applies to every response and every approach to solving problems that we must deal with as responsible stewards of the human race and our planet. The way that I see it, the ends cannot justify the means because the means and the ends are the same. Waging the horrors and evils of war (and many soldiers and veterans will readily concur with my descriptions), even for a "good" or "just" cause is still evil and taints the cause with evil as well. Dr. Greg Boyd reminds us that all too often we have sacrificed the long, slow, patient path of (what he calls) "holiness" for the short, quick, and (relatively) immediate road to "good". In other words, Greg is saying that the "holy" (or ideal) path to which all of humanity appeals is going to achieve acceptable long-term means, ends, and will have acceptable long-term repercussions.

The Question: Do the ends really justify the means? What is the criteria for taking someone's life? The quality of character for the person whose life is being taken? The cost-benefit analysis of that person's life in exchange for another's life? Who should decide these questions? Government officials? Religious leaders? You? What is the ratio of acceptable deaths to "lives-saved" when saying a war is justified? 4:96? 10:90? 49:51? What kinds of wars, if any, are truly justified? Are the means and the ends the same? If they are the same, how broadly does this get applied? Legislation? Crime management? Interpersonal conflicts? Personal ambitions and personal gains? So many questions...

Leave the light on.

and justice for all...

The Preamble: My wife and I love to watch Law & Order. It's a highly predictable crime drama that wraps itself up neatly at the end of every episode. While it uses many current events and values debates as a backdrop for episode plots, the show allows us to put our minds on autopilot for an hour. Very rarely does it provide any kind of intellectual stimulation for either of us. But it's good entertainment. A lot of times I wish the world could be as simple as a network TV drama - especially when it comes to our justice system. Bad guys are bad guys, good guys are good guys, the world always comes back together in the end, everyone goes home happy and gets what's fair. That's the Law & Order way (more or less) but it is not, at all, a fair representation of reality.

When I look at the commonly shared concept of justice in western culture, what I see is a system that it has become so focused on crime and punishment (and law and order) that any real presence of justice is hidden by layers of vengeance and retribution. I once said that not all ideologies are words that end in "ism", and the American system of "justice" is one of them. As an ideology, it stands as another obstacle on the path to finding objective reality.

The Case: It was once said that "there is a way that seems right to mankind, but in the end that path only leads to death."* There should be no doubt that this much could be said of our entire social fabric and especially of our concept of "justice". The foundation of our entire society is completely incompatible with a real environment of justice. From start to finish the American system is overrun by the protection of self-interests, even at the expense and exploitation of others. And in a social environment where self-interests are the penultimate reality to be chased, we encourage people to get the best that they can, even if it means doing their worst. The evolution of this kind of a society - which is seen in every corner of the world, but celebrated so much in America - has created two opposing groups: the "haves" and the "have-nots", with anyone still in-between slowly being pushed into one of the two camps. By elevating the protection of the privacy of person, private ownership of property, and personal rights to the level of "sacred", we've ultimately forced the "have-nots" to fend for themselves by way of some kind of merciless experiment in "Social Darwinism". So many of us have no substantial qualms with the reality that there are those in our own cities and neighborhoods that have become so weighed down by this system that they are a mere step or two away from choosing between crime and utter poverty and improvision. And this is nothing new to us either - it's as old as life itself. Yet in all of our advancement, all of our sophistication, all of our technology, all of our collective global wealth, we - all of us - prefer to spend our time and resources terminating on our selves.

So I hear you say to me: "Hey! Thanks for proving you're a clone of Karl Marx, but what does this have to do with the injustice of human justice?" You'll be surprised to know that in all of my historical studies, all of my reading, all of my free time I've never read anything written by Marx - not even the Communist Manifesto. But what I'm talking about has everything do with human justice. William Boothe, founder of the Salvation Army, wrote a brilliant work called In Darkest England and the Way Out that detailed the horrible living conditions of the poor in London and the connection between poverty and crime. Booth's main argument is that a man's soul (and his "eternal salvation") is completely unattainable in the midst of extreme poverty and squalor. In order to attain the salvation of the soul the missionary must also provide for the "salvation of the body."** But, of course, proselytizing and "salvation" is not the aim of this current discussion. Where Booth's argument and my own converge is when Booth acknowledges that many of the rich London residents were not willing to give up their money to fund the Salvation Army in order to achieve something as practically worthless as salvation of the soul. He presents a case that suits their needs when makes the claim that as the rich are able to help the poor meet their own needs and as they begin to help the "inner man as well as the outer man", the amount of crime in London would be sure to decrease. To Booth the choice was a very clear one: those Englishmen with resources (i.e. money and time) could use them to improve the condition of the impoverished and, in the long run, help prevent crime against all Englishmen (especially the wealthy and middle-class) or they could continue to horde their money, live in luxury, and ignore the plight of the poor - and then pay the government in tax money to execute a robust and expensive "criminal justice" and prison system to house those same people after they've violated someone.

It should be said that not all crime is derived from being oppressed and desperation. Even crime for those reasons is not based, ultimately, on just that. Crime happens whenever anyone elevates the self interest above or ahead of the good of those affected by one's circle of influence. But that is only criminality. Let's move on to justice. Let me say first that there are two different ideas about justice in our world: social justice and criminal justice. What Booth was trying to encourage his audience and neighbors was that there was a very ancient belief that the more generously a society invested in social justice, the more insulation that society is providing for itself against the need for a robust and expensive criminal justice system. What should also be mentioned is that the ancient world considered - in large part - the practice of elevating the private (or "self") interests before the public good as a complete lack of virtue.*** What's more is that even the definition of "justice" seems to have very little (if anything at all) to do with the concepts of crime and punishment. In nearly 84% of the passages in the Bible where the word "justice" is given a contextual meaning there is a very explicit definition: to tend to the needs of the poor the orphan and the widow, to be fair to the foreigner ("alien"), and to restore those that have been victimized (by man or by nature).****

And that is the truth of justice. Justice is not punishing the "violator of rights", it is reclaiming our responsibility to the poor, the foreigner in our land, and the victim of loss. In fairness to the reality we live in - financial poverty isn't the only criteria for a "victim of loss". A wealthy woman that is violated feels the same pain as the homeless women suffering the same violation. The reason I make such an argument for the poor is because too often they lack the resources to bring about the restoration necessary to completely heal. And that is the business of justice: healing and restoration. Anything less than this is simply reaction, revenge, and retribution. And this, of course, presents a problem for all of us. If any of us come to embrace this reality and reclaim this ancient axiom of justice, how can we ever hope to convert the substantial investment we've made over the millennia of emotion, money, laws, careers, and infrastructure in "crime and punishment" to a new system of justice? Do we stand up and fight a government that is legitimized by this current system? Do we overthrow it? No. Do we ignore the laws? No. Do we quit our jobs as police, corrections officers, wardens and judges? Not until they are made unnecessary, no. In the wise counsel of Dallas Willard: no need to fight it, just don't feed it.+

But how, then, do we create a new system? The answer is both comforting and terrifying at the same time: there is no need for any of us to build it, rather what is required of us is simply to be it. Like all movements that generate a lasting legacy, it starts with one or a few and spreads - like a virus - from one to the next until it grows so vast and powerful that it replaces and suffocates the original organism, rendering a new manifestation of the body. All that is required to create the change we desperately need is simply to be the change, and let that change influence (just like the influenza virus) everyone you come into contact with. There is no need to dominate with new laws or systems. There is no need to force a new way of thinking on those who aren't ready to see it - or those that have built a brick wall of dogmatic immunity to it.

If we, together as a community, can begin to sacrifice our self-centered needs for luxury in order to give to the poor, to sacrifice our selfish alienation of "foreigners" (as if any of us live in the exact place of our own births?) in order to practice generosity and hospitality to the immigrant, and to sacrifice our self-righteous need for retribution against the "offender" and the "criminal" in order to restore to wholeness the ones that suffer from loss, then we can transform our dark and miserable immitation of justice for true justice - a justice that is far less susceptible to perversion and corruption. A justice based on truth, responsibility (for ourselves and to others), and compassion instead a mockery of justice based on ideology, rights, and selfishness. It may look like donating blood, volunteering time at homeless shelters and food pantries, giving money, organizing benefits... take your pick or think of your own. But, in the end, the beginning of all justice is to care. Simply allow yourself to care about injustice and the plight of those losing hope around you. Let that compassion - and, yes, even grief - motivate you to act. Someone you know is hoping and praying for a miracle... a sign. We can be that sign. We can be that miracle. We can become justice for someone. Let the law judge the lawless and the lawful. Let the judges debate crime and punishment. But let the just be the justice that reality demands of all of us.

The Question: Are you, the reader, able to see the distinction between our system of "crime and punishment" (which we may call "crime management") and the ancient concept of justice? Are you willing to trade your personal vested interest in the current system for a new one? If there was a reason that would hold you back from being the change in order to create the change, which would you say is the primary one: the personal cost of change, being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge, or rejecting the validity of the concept outlined in this post? And, lastly, with the absolute failure of the human "crime management system" to prevent or rehabilitate criminal activity++... what more do you have to lose?

Leave the light on.

-------------------
* - Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25
** - James 2:16
*** - Reference Plato and Socrates
**** - Examples: Deuteronomy 16:20, Deuteronomy 27:19, Proverbs 21:3, Ecclesiastes 5:8, Isaiah 1:16-17, Isaiah 10:2, Isaiah 59:15, Ezekiel 22:23-31, Ezekiel 49:5, Micah 6:8, Zechariah 7:9, Matthew 23:23
+ - The Great Omission, Dallas Willard
++ - Based on felony recidivism statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice

from emptiness to everything

The Preamble: Coryn told me that she really likes running errands with me. She said it reminds her of when we were dating and we did everything together. And today we were running errands together while listening to John Mayer's Continuum album. I know John Mayer is a musically polarizing artist - you either like him or you think he sucks. I hope you readers can appreciate the kind of risk I took alienating you all by telling you that I was listening to his music!

In any case, we were driving around and a song of his called "Belief" spun up and, through the course of listening to his lyrics, Coryn and I began to realize that John was kind of singing about one of the major themes I've been trying to talk about with this blog: everyone believes something, at some level they're trying to fight for that belief, and the dogmatic division this willingness to fight for our beliefs is causing a pretty substantial amount of the conflict we have in this world... from little conflicts between two people and large conflicts between two nations.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm going to post the lyrics of this song so you can follow along:

Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

The Case: Whether you like John's music or not, agree with his political ideologies or not, or find him credible in commenting on "the human condition" or not, it can scarcely be argued that everyone believes in something. As Dallas Willard said once at a conference:

"Whether someone is a Christian or not, they are going to live according to certain assumptions about what is real. They are very likely to accept the popular notion that they live in a world where there really is no God, and that right and wrong are determined by what you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's freedom.

We have to start by helping people see that they cannot escape the fact that, no matter what they do, they are in fact choosing one version of what is real, true, and good. In that choice they need to be responsible. Not believing in something has exactly the same consequences as believing.

I'm saying that [we all have] a belief. This is absolutely crucial for [us] to understand. Otherwise [we are] under the illusion that [we are] in a safe place simply because [we haven't] explicitly committed [ourselves] to something."

On the question of "God" - everyone believes in something. By saying they don't believe in "God", most people mean that they don't accept a Christian's interpretation of reality. But the so-called "atheist" is a theoretical impossibility. There is, to everyone, an assumption or belief about the cosmic reality that exists outside of ourselves. To the Hindus it is called "the Brahman", to the Jews that cosmic reality is called "Yahveh" or "Elohim", to the Christian it is called "Y'shua HaMasshiach" or "Jesus Christ" and so on. Some will tell you that a Zen Buddhist has no "divinity" to emulate or achieve, but their cosmic reality is the attainment of "enlightenment" which stops the cycle of life. I don't mean to equate these perceptions of reality as though they are somehow really the same... they're not. Each of these perceptions of reality is an ideology of its own. They all have very intrinsically different and unequal "ideas" that they are trying to convey and, as I said before, to try to say they are the same thing is to diminish all of them.

What I mean to say is that there is no truly "neutral" position when it comes to reality. And, like Dallas explained, being non-committal about reality is still the same as choosing. Like the song says, "everyone believes, from emptiness to everything." When you say that you believe in something or stand for something you are intrinsically saying at the same time that you believe against something else and stand against something else... even if that "something else" seems senseless and obvious. But it is important to examine your values and your assumptions about reality in order to see just where and what those assumptions place you in regards to the opposite. Performing that kind of a "values inventory" may lead you to learn quite a bit about yourself, how you see the world, and - most importantly - why!

The asking of "why" is also a critical element of learning anything. Surely none of us are so educated and full of truth that there's no need to continue asking questions and continue learning. It may surprise you to learn that, in one way or another, we've all gotten to a place where we believe that there is nothing more to be learned - we've "figured it out". Think about it. There is something in your mind or heart that you have such a conviction about that you do not believe you could ever actually be wrong about it. I know that I've had to confront my own on many occasions and continue to find more every time I go to look. I've come to believe that this is simply an element of "experience". Through the course of events all of us begin to detect patterns about our existence in reality, those patterns lead us to assumptions, those assumptions lead us to convictions. Those convictions lead us to construct dogmatic brick-wall "beliefs" and "values" which, eventually, come together in the form of an ideology that dominates our worldview and keeps us insulated from the (sometimes frighteningly) dynamic nature of reality. Asking "why", like an infuriatingly curious two-year-old, helps keep those assumptions to a minimum, undermining the "mortar effect" that hardens those assumptions into rigid worldviews.

The Question: What do you call the cosmic, universal, objective reality? Do you remember how you originally came to this understanding? What are the most significant assumptions that you have about reality? Have you allowed those assumptions to crystalize into a rigid belief system or worldview? If you have any kind of rigid belief system or worldview, have you experimented with "why"? If so, how far down the rabbit hole did it take you? Blow up the comments section - I can't wait to see what you all were able to get from this.

Leave the light on.