Like any good fundamentalist child, when I was growing up I listened to Adventures in Odyssey every evening at 6.30. If pressed I am pretty sure I could recite for you their mailing address which was always stated at the end of every program. (For the heathens among us, Adventures in Odyssey is a radio show for kids put on by Focus on the Family. Characters include: Whit, the kindly old gentleman who runs the local ice cream parlor; Connie, the angsty older teen who works for Whit and was not born into the Christian faith; Eugene, the red-headed genius whom no one ever really understands; all the local townspeople, etc. )
One of the episodes I remember most clearly involved a made-up game that became part of my life. It was called right/right wrong/wrong. Whit, or one of the kids in the town, would tell a Bible story or story from real life and the listeners had to diagnose the story as right/right, right/wrong, wrong/right, wrong/wrong. As in:
- the right action/the right motive
- the right action/the wrong motive
- the wrong action/the right motive
- the wrong action/wrong motive.
I loved it.
My favorite story ever was a wrong/right story. I loved it because it was complicated and did not have any easy answers. What seemed right on the surface, was not right after all.
In 2 Samuel, chapter 6, David has just recovered the Ark of the Covenant: the most sacred relic in all of Christianity… the place where God dwelt and had his home. The Ark of the Covenant was (for visual purposes) a chest of sorts and it had disks on the sides through which long poles were supposed to be fitted, in order to transport the ark. NO ONE was supposed to ever touch the Ark of the Covenant. To do so was punishable by death. However, David, apparently not having access to the handy-dandy long poles he needed, outfitted a cart to carry the Ark back to Israel. HOW David got the Ark onto the cart without touching it, we are not told, but we are told that while the Ark was bumping along the dusty road the oxen took a fall, and the man Uzzah reached out a hand to stop the Ark from tumbling away.
Uzzah died on the spot.
2 Samuel 6: 7 “The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.”
Wrong action. Right motive.
Now, leaving aside the many many many ways in which this story should give us pause… let’s assume that it is what it is and discuss the lesson it is supposed to teach.
There seems to be an idea floating around that as long as one does something with “the right heart,” their actual actions can be ignored, forgiven, blessed, supported, what have you… In other words, as long as my motives are good (not to say pure, which is an entirely different level of godliness), that should be all that matters.
The problem with that is… it’s not true. Leaving aside the story of Uzzah, even… how many times have you seen this work out well in practice? Isn’t this the entire basis for the romantic comedy??? Someone has a noble goal or a good idea or a sweet crush… and they go about achieving things in the entirely wrong way. Disaster unfolds. In the corporate world I can just imagine the collective bosses of the world responding to the earnest intern’s plea that “really! I meant well!” while the copy machine explodes into bits.
The other problem with this is that I am not God, nor am I someone else, and so it is no small thing to act in such a way… a way contrary to what I know is wanted from me… and to believe that my acting in opposition to someone’s desires is perfectly okay because I KNOW BETTER. I know what so-and-so really needs. Unless you are dealing with very very small children, this is a risky… not to mention arrogant… thing to do.
Religion seems to infuse many people with this kind of arrogance. The missionary to the savages believes that instructing the native woman to cover themselves will protect their souls and the souls of the men and children around them. The missionary ignores the fact that this has been the behavior in the tribe for hundreds of years and that it is stunningly practical. Families turn their backs on homosexual sons and daughters, believing that to fail to abandon them in this way is to endorse and support their “lifestyle.” Prayer groups gossip amongst themselves for hours, divulging the dirty secrets of their friends, neighbors, relatives, employers… under the false impression that such betrayals of confidence are acceptable and surely innocent.
The point is, I don’t know what’s best for your life. I don’t know your heart and soul and destiny. I certainly don’t have the authority to manipulate those things in order to bring about my own personal goals for you. No matter how much I might believe in my own cause, my own religion, my own ideas of how a person interacts with the world… I don’t have the right to interfere in your life in that way.
Getting back to our dead friend Uzzah. There’s a final twist to this story. Uzzah grabbed at the Ark because why? Because the oxen stumbled. But the Ark would never have been in danger had the Protocol for Acceptable Transportation of the Ark of the Covenant been followed. It should never have been on a cart in the first place. Does that make Uzzah’s actions…. wrong/wrong?
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 27, 2008 at 6:12 am
JM
That’s some great storytelling! And a message more people need to hear.
January 28, 2008 at 3:04 am
amanda
jm – you are missed here, i must tell you. hope things are well!
ps. have you read the new john crowley?
January 28, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Anonymous
Not yet – have you finished the old John Crowley?
January 29, 2008 at 9:00 pm
YPFPO
Hey, I like this post. Good thinking generally, and you weren’t too heavy handed with the anti-religion theme. Nice balance, good pacing. Keep it up!
So, my question for you would then be: if Nathan the prophet had told David that it was a bad idea to move the ark that way, and David had listened, would that have not been best for Uzziah’s life? I mean, taking your argument to its logical extreme, no one should ever warn anyone else of anything at all because “it may work out ok for them – after all, it’s their life”. I think the appropriate distinction that would make your argument fully sound is to differentiate between preference knowledge and principle knowledge. I.e. if I know that your action / behavior is contrary to the very principles of the universe and will cause you harm, then I have the priviledge of warning you, if I so chose.
Simple example: you’re dating this guy. I, your brother, find out the guy is cheating on you with at least 14 other girls in 10 different cities (he’s an investment banker obviously). Now, the universal principle involved (irregardless of your religious persective) is that a cheating lover is bad for a healthy relationship. In your argument, I would have no right to tell you or anyone else about his cheating because “I don’t know what’s best for your life”. Under my distinction enumerated above, I would have this option but not necessarily be compelled to do so, depending perhaps on how our relationship stands and how open I feel you might be to discussion of your relationship with the cheater.
Make sense?
January 30, 2008 at 12:11 am
amanda
I was secretly cringing until I got this comment. I KNEW it was coming, I just didn’t know when you’d get around to it.
No, I agree. (As a preface: it seems to me that MOST arguments, when taken to their logical conclusions… ie, extreme, do tend to break down somewhat if not all the way.)
But yes, eminent danger and such things are appropriate cause for concern and meddling. It’s just easy to overestimate the right that the person meddling thinks he/she has to interfere… as you noted… some things are better left to others who are closer/more informed.