Friday's Recap (240709)

Dear Cell, last Friday we shared about living within the moral boundaries God has set for us. This world has a lot to say about living a moral and good life. To stay healthy, we have to eat healthy. To be happy, we have to live with a clear conscience. To live with no regrets, we have to pursue our dreams with determination. These are but some of the secular wisdom we learn in this world. In many ways, these principles square well with Biblical ones. But there are situations in our lives that call for a higher order of decision making that are less clear, less defined. In fact, some situations exact on us the exercise of moral judgment that seems to have no definite and clear answer. Take for example, the discussion yesterday we had about the “rightness and wrongness” of lying. A subject so simple, one would not think much of it. Lying is a big no-no. This is what we tell our children and expects our children to tell their children. Didn’t the ninth commandment of Exodus 20 specifically instruct us not to bear false witness? Didn’t the New Testament in Romans 13:9 call lying a sin? So, the message is clear: Avoid lying at all costs. Simple instructions like that should never go wrong. Right? Well, only if you live in a world where the mixture of colors white and black yields either clear white or pitch black and never dull grey. Or in a world where love can be encapsulated in an equation and happiness is all about possessing more and owning more.

Well, sadly, this world doesn’t let us get away so easily. It has its agenda and it challenges us to think way out of the box sometimes. I am of course not saying that we should finesse truth, conceal it or dilute it. Neither am I advocating that we should compromise morality or make it more pliable for our own convenience. What I am saying is that moral judgment is sometimes intuitive and you cannot, for practical purpose, pigeon-hole all situations we encounter into neat, tidy moral categories that meet the standard of logic, reason and good sense. Sometimes, we have to rely on our spiritual sense or feelings to reach a morally defensible decision even though the means by which we arrive at such decision are morally questionable. A mouthful? Well, let’s deal with lying to best illustrate this.

While most situations we encounter are clear-cut, there are times when lying can be a matter of life and death. What is a lie? Simply, it is not telling the truth. Others define it as intentional deceit. Thomas Aquinas defined it as a statement in variance with the mind. How would Corrie ten Boom feel about this definition? During the Second World War, she had to lie to the Nazis to save the lives of Jews she was hiding in her home. Her choices were limited. If she told the truth, by the above definition, she would have sent her Jewish friends, including children, to the gas chambers. If she didn’t tell the truth, they would live. So, it is a matter of life and death. Jonathan did the same to save David’s life when he lied to King Saul. Rahab had to be dishonest in order to spare the lives of Jewish spies. In fact, Rahab was commended for her "morally questionable" action in Hebrews 13:11. So, in such “sticky” situation, what should one do?

In our discussion yesterday, there were three views or camps. The first camp elects to call a “spade a spade”. No embellishment; no artificial colorings. They deemed what Corrie ten Boom did as a lie. Simply, untruth. So, after the Nazi guard leaves, they would seek God’s forgiveness for telling a lie. But, thankfully, they did not stop there. This group felt that the end was justified. The general good was achieved; even though it took a lie to save many lives. In the end, this camp felt good, spiritually contented and morally vindicated. Not so much as wanting a commendation like Rahab, this camp felt that God would understand that a lie is necessary if to lie is to save lives. It was done purely in the interest of others and not for self-gain. And you can say that the end justified the means, whatever the means.

Then, comes the second camp. Mark was the trailblazer of this camp. Always a man of practical sense, he did not view it as a lie. Corrie ten Boom did not lie by Mark’s definition. And none in her shoes should bother to ask for forgiveness because such action should be encouraged; not stigmatized as sin. This world needs men and women of Corrie ten Boom’s character, caliber and courage. Only men and women who dare to stand up against people the likes of the Nazi can there be a chance for universal kindness and widespread redemption. Of course, in order to defend Mark’s position, one has to perform some mental gymnastics and moral contortion. This is definitely not for the young at heart. Kids would never be able to apply this principle because it requires situational judgment and moral maturity. So, I’d advise that we divide our moral standards and teachings: one for the children and the other for the adults. For children, make it as simple as possible. They should be honest in all their ways. They should be responsible and respectful of others. And they should show compassion and gratitude in all situations. When in doubts, remind them to seek your counsel. This is where you should distinguish yourself. This is where Mark’s standard comes in. The true strength of a character is put to the acid test when faced with a moral dilemma in the same morally perplexing vein as Corrie ten Boom’s. Mark’s criteria of a lie have two factors. In order for a lie to be labeled as a lie, it has to be such that the recipient of the “untruth” deserves to know the truth and that such “deception” is done for self-profit or self-gain.

Applying this to Corrie ten Boom’s dilemma, we can say that she didn’t lie because the Nazi guard does not deserve to know the truth. Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise. Here, we enter another moral maze. Who then deserves to know the truth? Well, the list of such people can go on and on and there is no way one can make an exhaustive list, fully encompassing all situations present and future. And a lot of it depends on personal subjective judgment which is susceptible to abuse. But one can distill the guiding principle in all possible situations and it is this: Only those whose personal interests are directly involved or implicated deserve to know the truth. In this light, a patient deserves to know his medical diagnosis because his life depends on it. A student deserves to know her grades because her academic future depends on it. A mother deserves to know her son’s well-being because she is, well, her mother (enough said). A wife deserves to know her husband’s fidelity because that is the foundation of the marriage vows. A girlfriend deserves to know whether her boyfriend truly loves her and not just toying with her feelings because she does not want to be just another rebound. Well, the last one is debatable. But you get the picture.

So, withholding the truth from the above group of people is as good as lying to them.

Now back to the Nazi guard. My view is that he does not deserve to know the truth because he is in no way personally implicated in the exchange. He has no personal interest whatsoever in the well-being of the hidden Jews (unless, of course, his half-brother for whom he loves dearly was among the fugitive Jews). In fact, there is another good reason why the truth should be denied to him: He has murder in his heart! So, for completeness’ sake, one must not only assess whether the recipient deserves to know the truth by the standard of whether he has a personal stake in the exchange, one must also make a swift and mature judgment on his motives or designs.

The next and last factor is this: was it done for self-profit or self gain? This is a process of self-introspection. While the first factor is an external judgment made on the recipient, this second factor is one of an internal judgment made on one’s motive or intentions. So, it is only a lie if it is done for self gain. Needless to say, Corrie ten Boom passes with flying colors on this test. When she told the Nazi guard that she did not hide any Jews, she was doing so for their sake and not for hers. Of course, one can argue (by over-reaching) that she may be doing it for her sake to the extent that she, at some sub-conscious level, craves for recognition and fame that comes from being recognized as a savior of the Jews. But this argument falls flat, in my view, when we examine her intention at the time the Nazi confronted her at her door-step. Corrie ten Boom risked her life to hide the truth from the Nazi. She was literally putting her life on the line for them. Whatever possessed her at that time, one can safely say that it must be a rare commendable face of humanity or magnanimity seldom demonstrated when faced with a situation of this sort. The normal human reaction is to weigh the risks and forgo the chance of saving the Jews as it may all seem unworthy of the risk. But Corrie ten Boom went against the grain of human nature and did the one thing that could cost her her life. I dare say that the thought of self-recognition did not even cross her mind at the moment she did the selfless act that saved many.

So, there you have it, Mark’s definition of a lie. The only problem here is, what do you then call it? If a lie is defined as not telling the truth (something that we tell our children repeatedly), then clearly Corrie ten Boom had not told the truth. Her disclosure to the Nazi guard must surely be at variance with her mind or conscience. What label should we then give to what she had told the Nazi guard in order for it not to have the stigma of a lie? Mmmm…

This brings us to the third and last camp. The honor goes to Desmond, our invitee and newcomer. He enlightened us by taking the middle road, or as I’d call it, the Big Picture. Desmond invited us to see a given situation in its proper context. In this sense, nothing is as straightforward as it first seems. We all know that to read the Bible out of context can lead to much fanatical interpretation that could costs us our faith and even our limbs. So, we should take Corrie ten Boom’s moral dilemma in its proper context. Her action, that is, what she had told the Nazi guard, cannot be viewed in isolation from her plan to save the Jews hidden in her house. It is to be taken as one whole, undivided package. One should therefore not say that she had lied and her lie had saved many. In its proper context, Corrie ten Boom had done an act of saving lives. So, this means that what she had said to the Nazi guard cannot be read apart from the fact that lives are saved. I know this sounds like a matter of semantics (wordplay) but the idea here is to merge the means with the ends together until they are one and the same. It is liken to chemically mixing two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen to produce something wholly different from its separate, individual component: water. Imagine mixing intangible air to produce something as tangible as water.

So, Corrie ten Boom’s actions merges with the fact that she had saved the Jews to produce something that in substance justifies the action as a whole. By taking this middle road, we avoid calling a lie a lie (or we blindside ourselves from seeing it as a lie). We look at the start of her action and the end of it (Jews saved) and call it justified as a whole. Again, this takes some mental gymnastics on the adult’s part and this is not to be attempted by a child.

In the end, if we strain a little, we will note that all three camps share a common denominator or a general consensus: Corrie ten Boom’s actions are justified whether one calls it a lie or not. That is, she did right even if it was perceived as wrong (just one of the paradoxes of life, I guess). Put it in another way, the lie becomes secondary to the act of savings lives. And in the end, the lie fades in significance when compared to the lives saved.

If a lie is doing and saying something in variance with our mind or conscience, then all three camps can proudly say that her actions did not and should not run in variance with her mind or conscience. Her conscience is as clear as crystal because her actions bore fruits. It is my view that we should put human lives above and beyond all our moral obligations to each other. If a life is at stake, some compromises can be deemed as morally defensible. Of course, if we strain a little, we would enter another moral maze: What price/value should we put on a life when made to choose between a son and a daughter? (Remember Sophie’s choice?) Well, we have the world to thank for posing such morally tormenting predicament.

Honestly, it would be too ambitious to answer this question in this short letter to you. But in situation like this, I would rather rely on my spiritual intuition than trying to reason my way out of it (because at times, the heart knows of a reason, that reason knows not). I know this doesn’t say much but I trust that each of us, as a parent or spouse, understand our sacred responsibility to diligently seek out truths for ourselves and to consciously apply them in our lives one situation at a time so that when the time comes, we will know what acts are pleasing to God and what acts are not. Our life’s skills and maturity have to be honed so that we can grow in Christ-likeness and answer with confidence this question when faced with a moral dilemma: WWJD, or What Would Jesus DO?

As usual, let me end with this quote from a wise author John Fischer, which can be found in his book Fearless Faith, about searching for God’s truth in our lives “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings” (Proverbs 25:2).God has been playing hide and seek with us all along. He finds glory in concealments; we find glory in the search. To dump all the truth we know on someone all at once is to ignore the delicate process by which God draws people to Himself.”

So, as you take the narrow road this week, or the moral high ground, go and discover for yourself the many life-affirming truths God has planted along the way for you. And when your diligent search bears forth fruits, may you experience many illuminating moments to prepare you spiritually and morally for the winding and undulating moral terrain ahead.

For at the end of the day, wish not that your life’s road be short, broad or smooth. Life’s journey is sometimes far from being a pleasant, smooth ride. But wish instead that you are God-empowered to take the road less traveled. Jesus took that same road many years ago to Calvary and He is leading you along the same path to your own spiritual discovery. May you grow in this journey to be able to see Jesus’ guiding hand or hear his still small voice behind every moral twister that lies ahead.