Ideally, our hearts and minds will be aligned with God’s. Though we are all imperfect, we hope to ever increase in our understanding of God’s will and thereby employ it in our lives. As imperfect beings, our hearts are all-too-often set upon sin. But what about the times when the heart and the mind conflict, not about doing the right thing, but about what the right thing to do is? At first it may seem difficult to imagine such a schism taking place. In what instance would I think to myself, “this is morally wrong,” yet feel it is morally right, or vice versa? It seems the presence of one would automatically rule out the other. But is this always the case?
Let us borrow a well-known quandary from ethical theory: if lying is wrong, should you ever lie to protect someone? In one sense, the question is whether or not the end justifies the means. One must examine two immoral courses of action—either hurting someone or lying—and choose between them. We hope to choose the lesser of two evils, realizing that the option for true moral integrity is abolished. But I do not wish to speak to such concerns. Rather, let us imagine the person who feels strongly that lying to protect someone—not just lying, and not just protecting someone, but the single act that satisfies both provisos—is her moral responsibility, while also thinking that, contrary to her feelings, God probably does condemn all instances of lying. What is this person to do?
The easy claim may be that the person should stick to her mind, since this most closely resembles submission to God. After all, it may be argued, the person believes her mind to bear God’s will, and her heart therefore contradicts God. To follow her heart would be a willful betrayal of God. But what if the woman thinks as follows: “I believe lying is wrong. I believe that lying, even to protect someone, still constitutes a lie. But with all my heart, I feel it would be wrong not to lie to protect someone. My reason tells me that the immorality of lying lies not in the outcome but in the act, therefore I cannot logically understand how lying to protect someone is permissible. Nevertheless, I feel it would be wrong not to do so.”
Is it any less damnable to do something that our heart tells us is wrong, than to do something that our mind can only understand as being wrong? Looking at it from this perspective, it almost seems worse to ignore the heart. The mind never knows all of the details, all of the circumstances, nor all of the consequences that an action may produce. Therefore, to willingly do something that we feel is wrong seems more reprehensible. This is not to say that one should submit to every whim and fancy, but perhaps we, like God, should be quick to look upon the heart. It may not guarantee perfection, but it might just bring peace.
“And I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:13).
Other verses to ponder:
Prov. 21:2
Prov. 23:7
Isa. 51:7
Luke 16:15
Heb. 4:12
1 Jn. 3:20-21
Rev. 2:23
Online Bibles:
BibleGateway.com
Blue Letter Bible
Parallel Bible @ StudyLight.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have felt that same dilemma many times-issues like homosexuality and what not. Thank you for sharing.
I chose the issue of lying because I believe most people can identify with it. But truth be known, the rights (or non-existence thereof) of homosexuals to get married is one of the main issues that inspired me to write this particular entry.
For example, one may very well believe that marriage should be defined as a legal union between a man and a woman. At the same time, this person may feel immoral about voting to prohibit homosexual marriages. I myself feel torn on this issue, for theoretical reasons if nothing else. Should we always vote to put our own moral standards into law? This does not seem a bad idea, per se, but where do we draw the line? Should I make it illegal for my neighbor to have a different set of standards than me? Or, to be more precise, to legally be able to act on his standards?
In a democracy, it seems the majority should be able to uphold whatever legal definitions they choose. But is this notion dangerously vague? What if the majority wanted to outlaw premarital kissing? Many would find such a law to be ridiculous, but I'll bet more than a few would also consider it a breakdown in the legal system itself. But, if that's our gut reaction, we are forced to ask ourselves: why the difference?
Post a Comment