I was rewatching the TV show Scrubs when an episode played in which Elliot (hot blond doctor) discovered that she finally had the mentor she always wanted in Molly (hot blond psychiatrist.) Almost immediately following the discovery she also found out that Molly had a terrible personal life. She realized that her newly found mentor might not be the best person to guide her because, even though she was a rising star professionally, on a personal level she was a train wreck. In the end, Elliot thought to herself, "Listening to Molly made me realize a person doesn't have to be perfect to be exactly what you need." She concluded that she could accept the good with the bad and not discard her friend.
We conservatives can be pretty binary at times. We see things as black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. We can even do this with people. We declare a person lost if certain defects come to light. However, we are often also spiritual people who believe strongly in redemption, renewal, and restoration. We profess faith in the limitless love of the ultimate judge who is full of mercy and grace even while being perfectly holy and just. This can cause a bit of a conundrum on occasion It is probably the main area where conservatives experience cognitive dissonance.
Another troubling aspect can be that we draw lines behind which we always stand. I'm not making accusations of hypocrisy, but at times I do get a little sense of the Pharisee's prayer among us in that we thank God we're not sinners like those others, even though a completely honest evaluation would find us, along with all of humanity, in the same sinking ship in need of rescue. Everyone of us has some defect we hope no one ever discovers.
Of course, we are people who make such an honest evaluation. We prize consistency. We fervently seek intellectual honesty. When we search deeply enough we find in us the same burning compassion for people the left has because we do not believe ourselves above the common condition and weakness of humanity. We are far more rational and practical in seeking solutions to the plight of the downtrodden, but the basic desire to uplift others is very much present because we know the depths from which we have personally been raised. We're not, as the left would contend, cold and heartless. We're not going to push granny over the cliff, force orphans into the street to steal or starve, or incarcerate people for life over minor infractions.
But (there's always a but), are we entirely consistent in our judgments? We seek to emulate the holiness and justice of God, but we also must mirror his mercy and grace. The problem is that, not being God, we aren't quite equipped to do both simultaneously. We have to choose to be just or to be merciful. How we decide can be very inconsistent. Do we at times declare a person or category of persons beyond redemption? Sure, we're willing to give a drunk another chance once he's sobered up, but what about a person with a more hurtful defect? Do we allow the violent, once the violence has been curbed, back into society? What about a murderer? A rapist? Have we established a hard line beyond which there is no coming back? If we have, is that consistent with our core beliefs in the redemption (not earthly perfection) of man?
To make this personal, and to get back to the original anecdote, what do we do with friends and family when defects of character surface? How do you handle discovering your best friend has cheated on his wife? What is appropriate when someone you esteem highly admits to having a little too much love for the drink, or cheats on his taxes, or has an internet pornography problem? Yes, each situation is unique, but surely there are some guidelines, some basic philosophical or spiritual concepts to shepherd the process and help us achieve consistency.
No comments:
Post a Comment