(Proverbs 17:15) He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike—an abomination to the Lord.
Observation
To the Hebrew whose thoughts and life were structured by God’s ancient words, the idea presented in this proverb would have sounded familiar:
You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. And you shall take no bribe, for the bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Exodus 23:6-9).Bribery—a secret, willful perversion of justice. It’s probably much more common than the cliched secret exchange of cash. Hmmm … is the briber or the bribee supposed to wink? Wouldn’t it better to avoid eye contact altogether? And how safe is a bribe without a written contract? What if you disguise it as a fair and public exchange? (Why does congress come to mind right now?)
This proverb is a quietly strong challenge. We all have the unfortunate tendency to deform justice so it serves our personal comfort and convenience. If I challenge you for doing wrong, then I risk losing the benefits of our relationship. If the gap between our personal power it great enough, I can force you to fulfill my wishes (d.b.a. “needs”) against your will and best interest. Each of our days is probably filled with opportunities to resist injustice and to challenge wrongdoings, most of which we probably choose to ignore. Not challenging wrong becomes a character trait that ends up justifying the wicked and condemning the innocent simply because of the short-term benefits we get. We then lose our ability to challenge our own wrongs and other’s.
Application (Psychological)
This proverb assumes an agreement of which behaviors warrant condemnation. Such an agreement, such a commonality, is not likely even for the more optimistically misguided among us. That lack of agreement, however, doesn’t release us from concern about relational values.
So when is it appropriate for me to challenge another person when I think they’re doing wrong? That’s easier asked than answered. Consider a mom observing her child’s immaturity (it’s tough enough making such decisions when the child is having an age-appropriate emotional fit). Consider also an employee chafing under an employer’s unethical practices or a neighbor whose neglected pets are disrupting the peace of the neighborhood. Such cases get even more complex when I remember that my sense of right and wrong might be vastly different from another person’s. In moments of purified awareness, I’d have to admit that my values are influenced by my narcissism more frequently than I’m usually willing to admit to myself, much less to you.
Following are two psychological constructs that might temper our narcissistic tendencies.
First, by acknowledging our ego-centric assumptions, we might be able to dilute them live more peaceable with fellow humans. We humans—almost universally—believe we have each fundamentally figured out the way things actually are and that we have done this objectively. We naturally believe in our intuitive perceptions over each other’s. Here are examples of common ego-centric assumptions:
"It's true because I believe it." Innate ego-centrism: I assume that what I believe is true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
"It's true because we believe it." Innate socio-centrism: I assume that the dominant beliefs within the groups to which I belong are true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of these beliefs.
"It's true because I want to believe it." Innate wish fulfillment: I believe in (for example) descriptions of behavior that make me look good even though I have not seriously considered the contrary evidence. I believe whatever feels good, supports my other beliefs, does not require me to change my thinking significantly, or require me to admit being wrong.
"It's true because I have always believed it." Innate self-validation: I have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the extent to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence.
"It's true because it is in my selfish interest to believe it." Innate selfishness: I hold fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.
Second, by adhering to our psychological and counseling ethical codes, we engage more constructively with our collective morals. We need to submit. As wonderful as denial feels, we need to admit that we have human weaknesses—that we’re not demigods (and when you look at classical Greek and Roman myths, for example, there are few examples of moral behavior there, either).
Bribery is condemned in our professional ethical codes as well—not necessarily the types of bribes that are sealed with a wink, but the types, though, that we label as our dual or multiple relationships with clients. Outside of the clinical office—especially in a small community—it’s not easy to have only one role with a client. It might even be impossible. Dual or multiple relationships with clients tend to convolute ethical standards, and our ethical purities tend to break down in the presence of completing priorities. And once we humans get into that kind of confused state, we naturally resort to resolving conflict by subltly changing the question to “What’s better for me?” instead of “What’s the best professional help I can give you?” Here are three examples of why dual relationships are bad ideas for professional helpers:
(Therapist's justification): “As your therapist, I know you should reduce the stressors in your life, but you promised me that you’d paint my house before my party this weekend.”
(Swim-Team Coach's thoughts): “At the very least, I should be asking you some tough questions about your failed marriages and your inability to keep a job and probably some other safeguards, too, but you are the only one who agreed to drive our girls’ swim team to their competition in another state. Hmmmm. Is it worth the risk?”
(Pastor's justification): “I know your ex-wife accused you of abusing your children, but you said all the right things about being a Christian and you seem very gentle … and I really need just one more counselor for my cabin …”
Doing justice, practicing good, promoting safety, and enjoying liberty—these are as important to humans as air, water, and shelter. Few people would argue against these. And God agrees: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8). Yet these simple goals are as mind-boggling evasive for a community as … as … well, maybe there’s nothing else quite as evasive.
Of course, I don’t want to condemn the innocent. Of course, I don't want to justify the wicked. But what about things God has done for me? This leads to the conundrum of the cross and the Christian perspective on this:
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23)
Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God (Romans 5:1-2).
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:1)
Regardless of who I am or what I've done, God does not excuse or justify my sin (our sins). Sin is still wrong. It is still an abomination to Him. He condemned it even though that condemnation severed His relationship with us. But He also paid the penalty for our sins. He paid it Himself, thus freeing all of us from the crushing condemnation that perfect Justice demanded. His love solved the conundrum by paying the price of justice—death. His was not a justice-perverting bribe—it was (as described in the second chapter of Ephesians), a bride-ransoming investment. God died and rose again so He could still receive the mysterious benefits of relationship with us. Why would He love any of us so?
Prayer
Lord, I struggle with humility. I gladly receive, enjoy, and share the rich grace and forgiveness you gave me, but I’m not sure how to do that humbly, to not coddle the wickedness that caused so much pain to all of us? Between You and me, sure, I’m happy to receive Your grace and frolic through the new life you’ve provided. But how—with your grace—do I respond when I become aware of wickedness being practiced around me? Of course, it’s much easier to see in others than in me. Nonetheless, I want to be an agent of your grace that is strong enough to resist effectively injustice and promote freedom. I guess I need Your miraculous help.
Lord, my prayer doesn’t end here, simply acknowledging the difficulty isn’t enough. I still need to wrestle more vigorously with lifes moral and ethical obligations. I know I don’t do that perfectly or even very well, but, Lord, I’m willing to learn and to keep pursuing Goodness, Justice, Kindness, and Humility.
Yes, help me resist whatever is abominable to You and structure my life around those things that give You pleasure. Amen and amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment