One problem with the practice of Christianity, as I see it, is that sometimes there are situations that don’t seem to fit the rules. Or else they are so complex as to require extraordinary maturity and discernment for proper handling. And even then, the most mature, humble, wise, and knowledgeable-in-the-faith may still disagree with one another as to what constitutes proper handling. Oy.
One of the ways this might be dealt with is through deference to authority. Got a real mess on your hands? Take it to a spiritual authority, get, uh, his advice, and then do what he says. Whew, problem solved. Actually I’m not entirely brushing off this approach; I think it has real merit. It’s often necessary. However, I wonder whether we’re always completely off the hook when we do this, thinking we can dust our hands of a situation simply because the responsibility’s been transferred to someone else. I also wonder whether we don’t often bear more responsibility than we can handle, or ought to handle, by not allowing an authority to pronounce, or at least suggest, a solution.
There are two extreme views when it comes to dealing with complex difficulties. One is to insist that there are no ambivalent, or nearly so, situations. Such thinking sees in black-and-white, and, in my humble opinion, is often simplistic and skeptical of the facts, especially those of situations with which the person is not familiar. At the other extreme are those who attempt to deal with an agonizing situation by insisting that there is more gray area, complexity, or ambiguity than there actually is.
Both approaches exhibit denial of some sort. When faced with a choice between two (or more) unbearable choices, i.e., choices between two apparent wrongs, the latter will justify whichever choice is made. And when faced with the same difficulty, the former will pronounce a classification with which to categorically pronounce a judgment either for or against a certain option – which may or may not address the entirety of the situation.
Is it possible that sometimes a wrong is a right simply because there really is no right option in the situation? Or is it that the wrong is still wrong, given that doing wrong is unavoidable in this fallen world of ours, even when our intents and intentions are as good as they can be? I tend to think that the wrong is still wrong, even if apparently there was no “perfect” right that could be done in the situation. Or if the person involved was humanly unable to do what it took to do the ostensibly right thing.
Such a view doesn’t excuse the wrong, yet it recognizes the limits of our fallen existence. We cannot possibly, in certain circumstances, even with the best of intentions, always do the right thing. This is why we need a Savior. Sometimes we find ourselves in impossible, agonizing situations that force us to do something that violates our conscience, yet we can see no other way. Might this be due to our blindness? Sometimes, surely. But if so, it may be our collective human blindness; a blindness from which no one, no mortal human, has been granted reprieve.
I realize I’ve given no concrete examples...those are coming in future posts. (Don’t say I didn’t warn you!) Actually, I’m sure most of use can think of a few. I welcome you to share them in the comments, and/or discuss this post.
