Category Archives: Ethics

COVID-19: Loving Through Confusion

Posted on by
Reply

Why COVID-19 news can drive people bonkers: You read one thing one place and another thing elsewhere. Notice below how one title suggests contemplation (“should you” and “suggest”) while the other strikes more concern (“recommended” and “high”). Further notice the timing of the article, where a question is asked after statement was made earlier in the day.

Part of the problem is “framing” or how the information is set. Here we have a prime example of this: same source, same author, same day — and yet, a reader might get different impressions from both.

In short, the recommendations remain the same: If you’re immunocompromised, living with someone who is immunocompromised, are mature in years, or have any other risk factor, it’s better to be safe than not — particularly in large groups and dining situations.

Messaging has been boggled (and reframed) so many times that any news these days can be confusing, especially since a plateau of cases can mean the media reshaping rather than reporting. Thus, you’re at the mercy of whatever perspective or “angle” is being used.

The positive is that this explains why well-meaning people can have such divergent views. If you’ve seen one source and someone else sees another, it’s no wonder why there remains confusion. (In fact, some will agree or disagree with either one of the examples provided here.)

Of course, the best solution for your personal health is ask a professional (your doctor) what is best for you and your family, rather than perusing the internet. But even more important is to continue living according to love: caring for others, even forgiving and blessing those of divergent views, and seeking the good of one another.

After all, according to Jesus, the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor, often at your own expense, even when you disagree.

Complexity in Esther

Posted on by
Reply

As you interpret Esther as a biblical character, let me encourage you to embrace complexity. Good narratives focus on dynamic characters, and scripture is replete with complex, multi-layered narratives. Rather than thinking in black and white, I’d encourage you to think in terms of layers. In short, characters can have layers of strength, layers of weakness, and layers in between.

(Note: I am not saying to reject binaries or absolutes; what I am saying is that literature invites us into deep, holistic, and rich readings—especially in regards to characters.)

Thus, rather than labelling Esther as “good” or “bad”—or “faithful” vs. “unfaithful”—we see displayed in Esther the full human condition. As many have mentioned previously, Esther was not perfect, and as New Testament readers, we know that “all fall short” of perfection. Perhaps some of her early actions could have been rejected, similar to how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego took a stand in the face of danger. It’s often pointed out that she could be more brave or more faithful.  

That being said, we need to be very careful about if/how we label her. Ultimately, it’s not our job to “judge” Esther, and really, her spiritual status is not the main point of the story. (In other words, people can have different views of Esther and still reach the same conclusions about the overall narrative.) Esther is complex, like all of us are, so labelling her as “all good” or “all bad” isn’t very helpful. Perhaps she willingly went along at times, but perhaps not; she could have hated her actions and the situation. To be frank, the narrative leaves some of that unknown, but just as you and I are “mixed bags”—within our collection of good gems we have some stones—so does Esther demonstrate the complexity of the human condition.

I point this out because we do not want to demonize Esther, as if she were a horrible Jew. As presented in the story, she is certainly not a villain, but a victim. She is held prisoner and has very few choices in front of her. (As my wife points out, Esther is portrayed as a “passive” character early in the narrative, while the men are the primary actors.) Again, she could have rejected the king, but very few would ever make that choice, given an impending death sentence. Especially due to the power imbalance—a king over a servant—it should be clear that she was objectified and used by the king. (A parallel is how King David misused his power over Bathsheba; he did not romance her, but abused her, prior to killing her husband.) Even though Esther is eventually “blessed,” the ends do not justify the means—so we can acknowledge that both victimization and elevation occur. 

Thus, when the text says that the King was “pleased,” it does not mean that Esther fully embraced the role. Nothing in the text suggests that Esther enjoyed being in that position, so we don’t want to see Esther as “sinning” or being unfaithful in that situation. Even the preparation ahead of time does not mean she fully embraced the role, since she likely felt surrounded and stuck. Again, some aspects are unknown, but the silence raises a crucial point: it would be presumptive to say Esther sinned when the king took her, since as most ethicists would point out, immorality involves (unforced) personal will—not legitimate, threatening coercion from another, especially not by a person of power. (Note: Ethicists debate how much will is needed in the face of such coercion, such in as the infamous Patty Hearst case, so that could be debated.)

To state the issue more directly: In cases of sexual abuse, as well as potential cases being investigated, outsiders should focus on facts. We must be extremely cautious when assessing inner thoughts and motives of victims, since horrifically, it’s far too common for people to blame or shame victims. We should not presume anything. To use the parallel example of Bathsheba, rather than guess at her motives and blame or shame her, since the data is extremely limited, the focus should be on David’s atrocious behavior. Due to the incredible imbalance of power, regardless of anyone else’s actions, David wildly abused his position.

Literature commonly features “flawed protagonists,” since no one is perfect. Thus, regardless of the fine details (such as her motive or inner thoughts), we can embrace Esther as a “hero”—especially since other biblical heroes (e.g., Moses, David, Peter, Paul) acted far, far worse. I hope we don’t get “lost in the weeds” when debating Esther as an individual, since the author’s main focus is the overall success of the Jews, as enabled by God. Most importantly, no matter how we interpret Esther as a character, and no matter how many outstanding questions remain, what is certain is that God is the ultimate hero in this story. 

Love, Liberty, & Caution: Why Jesus Would Wear A Mask

Posted on by
Reply

What’s most surprising right now is not the anti-science views circulating around the internet, but the callousness. There’s lots of debate, but less concern for the sick and the susceptible. All who fight for the “freedom” to not wear a mask overlook that the reason to wear a mask is for another person’s good, not their own.

Good citizens, and especially people of faith, should always prioritize love over liberty — even if that means personal inconvenience for a short period of time. All of us should be limiting personal travel, fashion, and preferences for the sake of others.  But if you doubt the WHO, doctors, government, or anyone else, show compassion out of caution, if for no other reason. (Note: Some cannot stay home for a variety of reasons, so “inconvenience” does not apply to those cases.)

If general caution isn’t enough, consider Christ — who surrendered some of his liberty, at least temporarily while nailed to a cross, for the safety of the masses. At the very least, even if you doubt scientists, ask yourself, “What would Jesus do if evidence or data were limited?” Would he insist on his legal rights, possibly endangering others in a reckless manner? Or would he be cautious, for a temporary period, until more was known?  In short, was Jesus more concerned with love for others or his own personal liberty?

If I know anything about Jesus and how he’d act during this pandemic, it’s this: If Jesus would die on a cross for you, he would also wear a mask for you.  He would do everything within his power to protect your well-being — not merely healing the sick, but protecting from future harm (“go in peace,” Lu. 14:48).

Remember how we used to mourn over 10-20 people injured in an accident or killed in terrorist event? Now, many Americans want to move on — even though over 50,000 have died, greater than the entire death toll of Vietnam. As Americans, maybe the tragedy here is not our lack of intellect, but our lack of heart. If we cannot sense the world like Jesus does, then we cannot possibly care for those who need us most — namely, the weak, the sorrowful, the homeless, the outcast, and the poor.

Most of us, including myself, need to lament and feel more. Rejuvenating an economy before resuscitating our hearts will do more harm than good. And without sorrow, we are bound to become worse people than we were before this tragedy.

May God help us all.

Humility that Helps

Posted on by
Reply

Bear with me on this one, as it’s an imagined scenario within an imagined scenario…

 

For years now, starting when I was in college, I’ve tried to understand Jesus’ teaching on foot washing. As you may know, the actual practice of foot washing is a distinctive feature of some churches (e.g., Church of God), which I had experienced back in college. The idea has always kind of baffled me.

 

Anyways, here’s the thought within a thought:

1. Today, I had a dream featuring my pal Dan, who in the dream was ministering to some international students. His goal was to teach them about foot washing.

2. In the dream, Dan was asking discussion questions, and one of the questions was this: “If you were to call home to your relatives to explain this Jesus story, the time of day would be different for them, so how might that affect your explanation to them?”

3. The implication is that if it were 6 AM when those relatives answer the phone call, talking about washing feet would not make sense to them, since their day would just be starting. In addition to translating to their language, you would contextualize for the location and time of day — e.g., not offering to wash their feet, but instead sending a gift card or money to make their day easier.

4. The application, then, is that the purpose of foot washing is to ease someone’s burdens and frustrations after a long day’s work. Jesus’ example is not meant to show you’re willing to do something filthy or to lessen your own value, but to encourage service towards others in the sense of easing someone’s daily work. In short, it’s not humility for humility’s sake, but humility that helps — specifically, serving in a way that eases someone’s load. In other words, we don’t serve in order to be spiritual (for our own sake), but we serve to help (for another’s sake).  Of course, such service might be dirty sometimes — such as tending after someone’s wound or taking out the trash — but that in itself is not the point; instead, the point is to ease weight and/or bring relief from the pressures of life.

 

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” – Jesus (Mt. 11:28)

House Bill 2495 – Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act

Posted on by
1

Illinois is currently attempting to pass expansive changes to reproductive law (House Bill 2495) — considered to be more extreme than what New York recently passed.

 

Without delving into political talking points, there are several reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to be concerned:

 

The new law states that the unborn do “not have independent rights under the laws of this State.” With no rights prior to birth, the legislation repeals partial-birth abortion, which basically means that the unborn can be aborted while in the process (thus “partial”) of birth. Without even considering possible pain for the fetus, basic intuition seems to suggest that such late-term practices should not be commonly practiced — and it does not require much effort to imagine how such a practice could be abused and misused. (Note: If need be, you can research the practice for yourself, but I will not post grotesque photos, since we can think about this reasonably, without the need of frightening images.)

 

Additionally, nurse practioners would be allowed to perform abortions, which for most of us should raise health and safety concerns. With matters of life and death (for both the fetus and the mother), it seems like we would want stricter, not looser, laws on who should be involved. Thus, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can all agree on the need to protect women.

 

Thirdly, under the proposed law, husbands are said to have no rights in the decision, as they are essentially reduced from fathers to biological donors. Of course, safety restraints could be put in place for harmful men, but this law does not do that. In short, it is important to embrace women’s rights, while not at the same time not removing husband’s rights. With careful thought and dialogue, we can value both women and men.

 

Maybe the main problem, however, is the law’s internal contradiction. The irony is that it is a felony for a person to kill an unborn child — except if that person is a parent. Of course, this reveals a double standard within the law. If the unborn do not have rights (meaning no life or personhood), then it seems nonsensical to call it a felony for one party and not another. The unborn either have rights or not; legislators cannot have it both ways.

 

Regardless of your political party, the law goes too far in expanding these practices. In order to protect all involved parties — the unborn from partial-birth abortions, women from dangerous practices, and husbands from losing parental rights — urge your state representatives not to pass House Bill 2495.

 

Find your rep. here: https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/addr/

 

[I won’t be able to moderate all comments, but replies that enflame others will be deleted.]

Women in The Book of Esther

Posted on by
Reply

We live in an exciting era of women’s rights.  In the past century, women have fought for the right to vote, to be heard, and to be respected.  We see this in a wide variety of expressions from marches to the #MeToo movement and beyond.  Sometimes we take this for granted, but in comparison to how women how have been treated throughout history, this is an amazing era.

Christians face women’s rights in many places, including the first few chapters of Esther.  Here’s a question to help prompt that further:

What do you think of Vashti’s response to King Xerxes?  Was it a proper or improper response?  Why do you think so?

But beyond that, there’s an even bigger question.  As readers of the entire biblical canon, we know that God is sovereignly working “behind the scenes” for the sake of His remnant.  Keeping that in mind, based on your answer to the above questions:

What does that say about God?  Why?

Of course, once we answer those questions, we should immediately consider how we should respond.  God’s view of women and His protection of Esther should not be overlooked, but deeply considered.  How should we view and treat women in this progressive era, and how are Christian human rights unique, in comparison to secular perspectives of human rights?  As Christians, we are obligated to consider these tough questions.

 

(image by Edwin Longsden Long, 1829-1981)

Luke & Poverty

Posted on by
Reply

“Blessed are the poor.” – Luke

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.” – Matthew

 

In my own life, I have recognized that my reading of Luke has varied depending on life circumstances.

 

When I have been poor, I have found extreme comfort in seeing “poor” without qualification — a reminder that God remembers me in my physical poverty.  And when my economic condition has been better, my reading moves towards Matthew’s “poor in spirit,” meaning that I focus more on spiritual poverty. I mention that because as we read Luke (whether in poverty or affluence), we need to be aware that our economic “lens” may influence our reading of the text.

 

So in the times of life when you have abundance, remember that others, such as those in impoverished countries, are reading Luke differently than you. That’s not to say that their exegesis is better or worse.  It’s a reminder to always see the rawness of Luke’s gospel — keeping in mind that poverty is not merely about a lack of means, but a lack of well-being.

 

In other words, poverty affects people holistically, since poverty often results from economic enslavement to a person or a system. So at the end of the day, poverty is not so much about possessions, but powerlessness. It is easy to lose hope when overwhelmed with poverty, but into that hopelessness, Luke speaks a powerful word: “Blessed are the poor.”

 

The “Rightness” of Sports

Posted on by
Reply

Play the game right.  We all agree on that.

 

But what does it mean to play the “right” way anyways?

 

We face a dilemma when a player is expected to win — and then that same player departs to a better team to win.  Most recently, people across the country felt outrage when Kevin Durant left Oklahoma City for Golden State, a move that inspired feelings of anger, distrust, and envy.  But why?

 

And then we cheer for losers and underdogs. Whether an elderly Kobe, a cheap Dirk, a non-jumping Duncan, or a booed Porziņģis — we want athletes not to take shortcuts, but to win the right way.  We prefer the “good” storyline rather than the bad one, and we turn on players who sign for money or who team up with other superstars.

 

As crazy as it sounds, we recognize that faithfulness counts in sports — maybe even as much as winning does.  If we’re honest, we know that our team might not win in the end, so at the very least, we want players to stick together and to stay with us.  We want players to be as faithful to us as we are to them.  For after all, the average fan would rather lose with loveables than win with thugs.

 

Whatever side we take, Durant’s choices demonstrate that ethical obligations do not exclude sports.  Old-fashioned ideals such as faithfulness, trustworthiness, and kindness apply to professional athletes, just as to everyone else.  At the end of the day, fans want athletes to represent them not only in terms of geography, but in terms of character.

 

In the eyes of loyal fans, Kevin Durant broke a promise. And that is what fans despise the most.  Win or lose, no one wants to be betrayed, and no one wants to be left behind.  That’s not to say that Durant did in fact break a promise; after all, he fulfilled his contract, and he has the legal right to move on.  But to many basketball fans, what matters is that it felt like a broken promise.

 

End results only matter for so much. Veteran fans know that championships are few and far between.  As decades pass, we learn that “doing things right” involves more than winning.  When we look to the courts and fields, we hope our athletes represent our ideals, not merely add numbers to a scoreboard.  As fans, we can still cheer after losses, as long as we believe in the character of our athletes.

 

More than anything else, sports of an insight into passion, drive, and character.  No matter how bad a team may be, we are drawn to cheer for athletes who battle despite the odds — for those who fight on behalf of the people who love them.  And that is how you do things right.