rahab’s exchange: a story of true faith

image courtesy of reverendmom

In this, my last post from the story of Rahab, I want to talk about the story itself — and not the questions of ethics which stem from it.  Other posts in this series can be found here:

• rahab’s exchange: the lie

• rahab’s exchange: ethical theories

• rahab’s exchange: moral absolutism

• rahab’s exchange: an interview with myself

• rahab’s exchange: a cultural argument for lying

---

The residents of Jericho were privy to some wonderful (or terrible, depending on who you are) stories about the power of the Hebrew God — stories of his care for, and protection of, the Israelite people.  Rahab explained to the spies that she and all her neighbors were trembling and afraid; that’s when she declared the following:

“The Lord your God is indeed God
in heaven above and earth below.”

A Proclamation of Faith

But more than a spoken proclamation was involved.  Rahab demonstrated her faith with actions — by surrendering her life (and the lives of her family members) to the one true God. The Hebrew writer doesn’t speak of Rahab’s sworn statement of faith; James doesn’t speak of her testimony of words.  Both writers focus on the actions that were born out of her true faith in God.  Actions that confirmed and completed Rahab’s faith.

Rahab entrusted her life to God.  And, consequently, to the people of God.  There’s a lot to be said here concerning the people of God embodying the character of God.  How many prostitutes today would entrust their lives to the church, believing us to possess the intrinsic qualities of God?

The Scarlet Cord

The scarlet cord draped in the window is quite symbolic.  What Hebrew wouldn’t have thought back to their parents’ last night in Egypt — when they were aroused from their sleep and begged by Pharaoh to leave immediately?  The blood on their own doors prompted the Lord to pass over their homes, while He killed the firstborn of every Egyptian family.  They were at that time instructed to observe the Passover ceremony when they would one day enter into the promised land (that is the very land now inhabited by Rahab and her neighbors, which would be taken a short time later).  Their very entry into the city was a Passover play of sorts, with Rahab acting in the role of Israel.

We, as Christians, look at that same scarlet cord and are reminded of the blood of Christ, which saves us from certain death.*

Rahab’s scarlet cord also marks the preservation of her family, a family from which the Messiah would one day be born.  Rahab’s story is more than a demonstration of true faith; in many ways both your faith and mine was born out of hers.  She is a sort of spiritual grandmother to us.

**********

The story of Rahab is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible.  Rahab, a prostitute, believed that God was indeed God and acted on that belief by surrendering her life to him.  As a result, she chose to share her life with the people of God and was saved from certain death.  This is faith, plain and simple.

**********

What I’ve Learned

• True faith is always accompanied by works.
• We, as the body of Christ, should possess the characteristics of God in such a way that sinners trust us with their lives — no matter how sinful, sick, or twisted they may be.
• It’s interesting that Rahab saw God’s power and the ease with which he destroyed enemy nations — and was prompted to believe the Israelite God was indeed Lord of heaven and earth.  Whereas today there is ongoing debate using logic which is exactly the opposite: “What kind of a loving God would do such a thing…” as punish humans, send people to hell, etc, and so on?  Justice once was evidence of God’s Lordship; now it’s become evidence that we’ve got the wrong kind of God?
• God uses sinners to accomplish his purposes and to teach his people.  Always (except in one exceptional case).
• The faith of one individual can (and often does) play a role in the salvation of many.  Not only did Rahab (in essence) save her family, but her decisions played a part in the future of all mankind.
• I believe American Christianity, however, places too much importance on “personal” salvation and “personal” decisions in regards to accepting Christ.**  Group decision-making is demonstrated often in scripture, as is the head of a household making a decision for that entire household.  This story is just one such example.

Any thoughts on the story of Rahab?

---

* It’s also worth noting that the scarlet cord is today memorialized by the millions of red lights which illuminate the doors of brothels and bordellos worldwide.  ”R0xanne, you don’t have to put on the red light!”

** For more on this, see here’s to hoping you haven’t accepted Jesus as your personal savior and tendencies of an american church.

rahab’s exchange: a cultural argument for lying?

image courtesy of reverendmom

[This post is the fifth in a series.  Others are: "rahab's exchange: the lie," "rahab's exchange: ethical theories," "rahab's exchange: moral absolutism," and "rahab's exchange: an interview with myself."  Rahab lied in order to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  Was she right to do so?  Is it ever right to lie?]

In the culture in which you grew up, there were likely many lies which were always allowed — and even preferred and encouraged.  Lies like:

How are you?
Fine, thank you.

Are you thirsty?  Can I get you a drink?
No, thank you.  I’m fine.
[But the drink would be served anyway -- or the question would be asked again, at which time it was appropriate to say that, indeed, you would like a drink.  In China it is necessary that you refuse the drink three times; the fourth time, though, you are allowed to accept.]

What do you think of my new haircut?
Oh, it looks great. Where did you get it done?
[Note the quick change of subject after the lie.]

Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?
It’s not the jeans, dear.  Denim doesn’t create muffin-tops; it just highlights them.
[Just kidding.  That's not our preferred answer.]

I think the general reasoning for our acceptance of such lies is that we’re trying to be polite or spare the feelings of another individual.  American culture has determined that, in such cases, being courteous is more important than objective truth. And many a Christian, when forced to think through this, is left only to assume that we are all sinning in doing so.

We lack a methodology for understanding why something we feel to be true (we should spare a friend hurt feelings even though her hair is hideous) might indeed be true.  We want the simplicity of a system in which there is no conflict between our various moral dealings.  We want right and wrong to be clear and unambiguous. But this approach doesn’t mesh with our conviction that it’s just wrong to tell a spouse he/she looks fat.

So, when pushed, many believers will offer up, “Yeah, it probably is wrong to be dishonest in those situations.  I shouldn’t lie no matter the reason.”  Then an individuals’ blatant disregard for others’ feelings can be credited to him as honesty righteousness.  Bad manners and a lack of compassion become the ideal for followers of Jesus?

• Some will say, “Exactly.  We shouldn’t lie no matter what our culture tells us.  Culture shouldn’t interpret morality.”
• Others will say, “Well, I just feel like we should look at the intent with which we lie in those situations.”

**********

Here in Tanzania, it’s incredibly rude to answer a friend with, “No.”  There is instead always a polite excuse offered.

Let’s say you have a practice of not allowing others to use your vehicle.  No matter how logical your reasoning, if I ask to borrow your car, you should offer a polite excuse.  It won’t do to say, “I’m sorry.  You can’t borrow my car because my wife and I don’t loan it out to anyone.”  Instead you should offer, “Oh, but I think I might be using my car on that day.”  Even if you have every intention of staying at home with your car parked in the garage.*

Or say you’ve had a really long day of work and just need to read a book or sit in silence, and have some “you time” — but someone wants to visit with you — do you say no and try to explain your reasoning?  Of course not; you simply answer, “You know, I’m really busy with some work issues this evening.”**

But here’s the catch:  When you offer one of these excuses, your friend knows this is not a real reason, but rather a polite device employed to spare his feelings and safeguard your relationship.

If you were to simply say “no,” he would be left to wonder why you no longer want a relationship with him.  Why would you be so incredibly rude to say no, when you easily could have made up any number of small lies to spare his feelings and keep your relationship intact?

Truth and accuracy are not held in nearly as high regard as relationship and civility.

I am becoming more comfortable with this system of choosing relationship over accuracy.  I’m not saying it’s right.  But that’s much of the reason I’ve lately been studying ethics and the Rahab story.

I mentioned earlier the two most likely responses:

1. We should not lie no matter what culture tells us.  Culture can’t interpret morality.
2. We should take into account the intent of a given lie.  Was it to be polite?  Then we’ll let it go.

I don’t necessarily buy either of these arguments.  Human morality can’t exist outside of culture, and determining morality by intent alone is suspect in my opinion.  [Of course I've made it clear in past posts that I believe there to be a graded hierarchy of moral laws, which should be utilized in these situations.  But...]  I wonder if my own argument in these situations might be much simpler.  It probably looks something like this:

• A lie which everyone knows to be a lie, is not a lie.

Perhaps it’s not a question of whether or not it’s right to lie in these situations.  It might be that these words are indeed not lies.  What do you guys think?  Farewell, Brett Harrison?

[Next post -- rahab's exchange: a story of true faith]

* Obviously we can use our creativity to think through ways of dealing with these situations without lying.  I often try to employ humor in these situations.  Though, clearly I am still not telling the truth, which is that I simply will not allow you to borrow my car… whether it be for reasons of insurance, legal issues, or a general lack of safety.

** We won’t get into the many problems with viewing any time as being your own private and personal time — valuing self over community.

---

P.S. — If you’re interested further in the topics of “dishonesty” in African culture, see of marathons and misinformation: a lesson in tanzanian communication and missionary predicaments: hospitality and rest.

rahab’s exchange: an interview with myself

image courtesy of reverendmom

[This post is the fourth in a series.  Others are: "rahab's exchange: the lie," "rahab's exchange: ethical theories," and "rahab's exchange: moral absolutism"  Rahab lied in order to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  Was she right to do so?  Is it ever right to lie?]

I’ve argued that the most sensible system of ethics is deontological ethics, in which there exist moral laws to which all humanity are obligated to obey.  I believe those moral laws originate in the person and nature of God. I’ve also offered graded absolutism as the most logical (and useful) subset within the deontological framework.  The graded absolutist (that’s me) holds that God’s laws do, at times, conflict with one another.  The duty of the believer, then, is to be obedient to the weightier of those two laws.  In doing so, the Christian does not sin.

But there are some obvious questions to be asked.  And because I’m not popular enough to be interviewed by anyone else, I’ve volunteered myself to do the job:

---

Brett, are there any actual scripture references that support your arguments for graded absolutism?  Or is this all just an exercise in logic and imagination?

There are several verses, I believe, that attest to the existence of weightier commands.  Here are a few:

• Matthew 22:36 – Jesus demonstrates that there is a “greatest commandment,” and even a “second” that is like it.  So there certainly is present some hierarchy of moral commands — of which the chiefest is to love God with all of our being.
• Matthew 10:37 – Loving Jesus is more important than loving our fathers, mothers, and family.
• Matthew 23:23 – The scribes and Pharisees tithe even their spices, but they’ve neglected “the weightier matters of the law:  justice and mercy and faith.”
• Matthew 5:19 – Jesus states that there do exist lesser commandments.
• 1 Corinthians 6:18 – Sexual sins (committed inside the body) are somehow worse than other sins.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 – God punished and killed an innocent human being in order to save us.  This was an injustice — as we ourselves are incredibly deserving of punishment and death, and Jesus was not.  God’s plan of salvation itself is immoral if there is no graded absolutism.

You made the outrageous claim yesterday that graded absolutism is “demonstrated in scripture a number of times.”  Can you cite a few of those instances for us?  And don’t use the Apocrypha — very few of us are Catholics.

Sure.  I’d be happy to:

• Acts 5:29 – Peter and the apostles have broken the commands of the authorities in order to teach the gospel.  There was a clear conflict between obedience to God (proclaiming the gospel) and obedience to civil authorities.  Their answer: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” [The commands to obey civil authorities can be found in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.]
• Acts 4:18-19 – Peter and John in nearly the exact same scenario.
• Daniel 3 – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden statue even though they were commanded to do so by the king himself.
• Daniel 6 – Daniel continues to pray to God three times a day, despite the fact that this was illegal.
• Luke 2:41-52 – Boy Jesus chooses submission to God over submission to his parents.
• Matthew 12:1-8 – Jesus and the disciples pick and eat grain on the sabbath.  He then relates the story of David having eaten the bread of the Presence (1 Samuel 21) when to do so was unlawful.
• Matthew 12:9-14 – Jesus heals on the sabbath.

And these are more circumstantial — and may not fit our context exactly, but they’re at least worth looking at:

• Joshua 2, 6; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:24-25 – This is where the series all began.  Rahab lies to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  Her faith is commended in the Hebrews text, and her actions (of receiving the spies) are endorsed in James.  Nowhere is it stated explicitly that Rahab’s lie was approved by God or good.
• Exodus 1:15-22 – The king of Egypt commanded the Hebrew midwives to immediately kill every Hebrew-born male.  The midwives, though, “feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them.”  Instead they lied and said that the Hebrew women were strong and healthy and always deliver before the midwife can even arrive.  ”So God dealt well with the midwives… and because [they] feared God, he gave them families.”  This story doesn’t come out and say, “God approved of these lies.”  But it very nearly does.
• 1 Samuel 16 – Samuel was commanded to go and anoint one of Jesse’s sons to be the next king.  In order to be allowed to enter without being killed by Saul, though, he is told by God to tell what we might consider a “little white lie” — that he has come peacably, to sacrifice to the Lord.  This isn’t a straight out-and-out lie, but surely we’d agree there is some dishonesty and deceit present.
• Let’s don’t even start the conversation about all the instances in which killing another human being was approved of — or even commanded — by God.  [No, seriously, let's don't start that conversation...]

Aren’t you afraid that, if we adopt graded absolutism as our theory of ethics, people will only use it to justify sin?  A fellow could argue that he lied to his wife, because he didn’t want to hurt her.  Or that he only stole food in order to feed his hungry family.

I suppose I’m not very afraid of that.  Any system of ethics is going to be abused; that’s what people do. They sin, they break rules, and they act selfishly (and foolishly).  Are we seriously considering throwing out a valid understanding of scripture and morality because we’re afraid people will abuse it?  Why not throw out mercy and grace while we’re at it — people abuse those?!  [Actually, some of us have attempted to throw these out...]

So you’re telling us you believe God is so imperfect that he was forced to create laws that would conflict with one another?  If God’s perfect laws are in conflict with one another, then his nature itself is necessarily in conflict.

This argument doesn’t make any sense.  If conflict within laws created by God necessitates conflict in the nature of God, then sin in a world created by God necessitates sin in the nature of God. We live in a fallen world; things happen.  In a perfect world, these laws wouldn’t be in conflict.  If my parents didn’t sin in commanding me not to worship God, I wouldn’t be forced to choose between obedience to God or my parents.  But sin breeds conflict.  And Christians are not exempt from conflict.  We are not immune to hard choices.

Are there any examples of Jesus having faced any of these moral dilemmas in his life?

Honestly, I’m not sure; but I think so.  I mentioned above the story of boy Jesus remaining in the temple when he was supposed to be with his parents in the caravan to Nazareth.  He caused them great concern and anxiety, and his only answer was, “Didn’t you know I had to be about my Father’s business.”  I’m not sure that story is itself a great argument.  But it leans that direction.

It would probably be more productive to look at any of the number of times Jesus argued for mercy in the place of justice.  We know that mercy and justice were both considered by Christ to be “weightier matters of the law.”  But when the two conflicted with one another (the woman caught in adultery or Jesus’ own crucifixion despite his innocence), Jesus forewent justice in favor of mercy.  He spared the adulterous woman, and he chose to die to save the world.  Mercy over justice.

Do you really believe dinosaurs roamed the face of the earth in Old Testament times?

Uhm… yes?  But I don’t see how this is pertinent to our discussion.

Yeah, I was just wondering…

Next post: a cultural argument for lying.

rahab’s exchange: moral absolutism

image courtesy of reverendmom

[This post a continuation from "rahab's exchange: the lie" and "rahab's exchange: ethical theories."  Rahab lied in order to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  Was she right to do so?  Is it ever right to lie?]

Yesterday we looked at three possible systems of ethics.  Deontological ethics is the system in which we assume there exists a moral law for all mankind — and it is our obligation or duty to act in accordance with this law. Those of us who adhere to this system of ethics are called Moral Absolutists, because we believe this moral law is absolute and binding for all people in all places; most Christians fall into this category.  Today I want to discuss three subsets of moral absolutism (and then cast my vote for one of them).  [For my purposes, I am writing as if we are all Christians.  What that means is we will assume the absolute moral laws come from God, and are contained in the Bible.]

1.  Unqualified Absolutism

Also known as “non-conflicting” absolutists, adherents to this system believe the absolute laws contained in the Bible are never in conflict with one another.  Any perceived conflict is due only to a lack of knowledge.  There never exists a moment in which the Christian must choose to be obedient to only one of two commands or select the lesser of two evils.  There is always a way for the individual to be obedient to every command in scripture.  Lying is always wrong, no matter the situation.

The unqualified absolutist would contend it that Rahab did not have to lie in her situation.  And she was sinful to have done so.  There was some better option for her.  But if she had she told the truth and the spies been killed, she would still have done what was right.

What I appreciate about unqualified absolutism is that it takes very seriously the word of God and obedience to him.  What I don’t like is that this all seems naive and just a bit ridiculous.  [Plus a lot of people claim to be unqualified absolutists, and really aren't -- see the "one last word" section at bottom of page.]  I worry, too, that it elevates these moral rules to a higher status than is deserved or needed.  I believe much of the reasoning for the unqualified absolutist’s stance is:

• to protect the nature of God. “All moral law originates in the nature and person of God.  If we suggest these laws are at times in conflict with one another, we are suggesting there is conflict in the nature of God itself.”
• to allow us to possess a simple and tidy faith where hard questions needn’t be asked. “Just read the Bible and do what it says.  It’s that simple.  Don’t start down one of them slippery slopes, you hear.”

I don’t believe the nature of God needs protecting.  And I’m not so sure (heresy alert?) there exists a huge problem with conflict within God’s nature — especially when that conflict may merely be perceived, and not actual.  So… we don’t understand completely how love and justice occupy the same place at the same time in the person of God?  I’m alright with that; chalk it up to me not being God.

As for possessing a tidy, little faith, good luck with that.  I just don’t think it works that way.  Faith is rarely well-groomed, and Christianity isn’t bullet points and name signed on the dotted line.

2. Conflicting Absolutism

This seems a little more honest and realistic to me.  The conflicting absolutist believes there are moral absolutes which all humanity is obliged to obey.  But sometimes these rules come in conflict with one another.  It is the duty of the believer, then, to choose the “lesser of two evils.” He should, based on his knowledge of God and scripture, be obedient to the greater of the two commands, breaking the lesser.  [Of course the Christian should then ask forgiveness for having sinned.]

The conflicting absolutist  would contend that, if Rahab had no choice but to lie (saving lives) or assist in murder (telling the truth), she was right to lie. She chose to be obedient to the greater command, and therefore did what was best — but still sinned.

I appreciate the conflicting absolutist’s realistic outlook on the world, but I do have a couple of problems with these ideas:

• Jesus was a human. If Jesus was fully human and tempted in every way that we are, then it would follow that he also experienced these moral dilemmas.  He necessarily would have sinned.  And if he didn’t face any of these conflicting moral scenarios, then he was not indeed tempted as we are.
• It seems odd that the best I can aim for is to commit a lesser sin.
• If repentance involves admission of guilt and changing my mind and life so that I turn and walk a different direction, then it is impossible to repent of these lesser sins I’ve committed.  Because I fully expect and intend (and would be right) to commit that very sin again if ever in that same situation.

3. Graded Absolutism

[Also called "hierarchicalism.]  The graded absolutists, of which I am one, believe these moral laws can and do at times conflict with one another.  But these are not situations in which the Christian chooses the “lesser evil” and sins.  Rather, the believer has chosen what was good and right. Like the conflicting absolutist, though, the graded absolutist must discern which command is the weightier of the two.

The graded absolutist would contend that Rahab may have had no other option when confronted by the king’s men but to lie or to allow the spies to be killed.*  If so, and she chose to preserve life as it seemed to her to be the more important of the two rules, Rahab was right in doing so and therefore did not sin.

Let me give a short list of reasons I believe graded absolutism to be correct:

• It argues for moral laws that are binding to all mankind — and these rules originate in the nature of God.
• It is realistic and acknowledges that, in this fallen world, these laws do conflict with one another at times.
• Jesus was tempted in every way as us and remained sinless.
• It is demonstrated in scripture on a number of occasions.  (This will have to be another post — the next one in this series, I think…)

One Last Word

One pet peeve of mine is that nearly all unqualified absolutists practice the conflicting or graded approach but claim otherwise.  Two questions to think about:

• If I am to obey my parents, who command me to denounce God, what should I do?
• If I am to obey the rulers and authorities of my nation’s government, and live in a country that doesn’t allow me to be a Christian, what should I do?

In both of these scenarios (and hundreds of others), the majority of Christians (non-conflicting absolutists as well) will say you should worship God and no longer be obedient  to — at least concerning these specific rules — your parents or government.  But isn’t that a conflict in these moral laws?  And won’t any Christian admit as much?

The conflicting absolutist says we commit a small sin by ignoring our parents’ regulations.  The graded absolutist says we’ve done what is right.  The unqualified absolutist has to agree with one of these other groups in this situation…  OR try to rephrase the scenario in such a way that there is no longer a conflict.  And they may try.  But (in my opinion) unqualified absolutism only works on paper — and even then not very well.

**********

In my next post, I intend to answer some of what I assume would be common questions asked of the above ideas.  I’ve got a short list, but if you want to add to it, feel free to post your thoughts in the comments below.  That way, too, one of the other readers can likely offer you greater wisdom and a better answer than me.

* I suppose this could have been due either to the circumstances or even Rahab’s level of intelligence.  I’m not suggesting Rahab wasn’t an honor student; rather I’m merely stating that if I’m unable to ascertain another way to save lives than by lying, perhaps lying is the right thing to do.

rahab’s exchange: ethical theories

image courtesy of reverendmom

[Continued from rahab's exchange: the lie]

Rahab lied to the king’s men in order to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  We find her faith commended in Hebrews and her actions applauded in James — though neither writer explicitly states that Rahab was correct to lie.

Is it ever right to lie? Do we ever find ourselves in situations in which we’re forced to choose between two evils?  Or between two sins?  How do we make sense of situations like these?

Now we’re firmly in the realm of ethics.  I’m no expert, but I’m going to offer the three most accepted options — and dispose of the first two:

1.  Utilitarianism

The moral value of an action is based on happiness and pleasure for the largest number of people. While vastly popular today — and the underlying theme of many an action-suspense thriller – utilitarianism denies the presence of absolute good or evil.  Rather, the nebulous “greater happiness” is considered (and often referred to as the “greater good”).

My problems with utilitarianism (aka consequentialism) are many.  In the first place, it would seem quite difficult to calculate and quantify “happiness.”  I also have serious problems with the idea that a majority is allowed to simply decide what is right and wrong based on what they happen to enjoy.  Utilitarianism also ignores the individual’s motive and intention, and places all importance on an outcome which (in most situations) could never have been known.

• If an affair between a married woman and a single man brings the two great happiness — and only the one husband is hurt — they have done the right thing.  But if the married couple has two children, what they’ve done suddenly becomes wrong.
• If a very large nation can grow its economy and bring great happiness to its citizens by conquering a smaller country and using its inhabitants as slaves,  this is good, fair, and right by utilitarianism.

[One note of interest, pointed out to me yesterday by Teammate Carson, is that the first example above is generally accepted to be true in modern America -- even among Christians.  Then the evil done is attributed to God himself, with cries of,  "But I'm certain God wants me to be happy."]

2. Virtue Ethics

The emphasis here is not placed on results or actions, but rather on virtues.  In virtue ethics, there are particular character traits that are viewed as inherently good or evil, and morals are determined based on “being” rather than “doing.” While I appreciate the question practitioners are forced to ask — “What kind of person should I be?” — I believe virtue ethics falls short as a complete ethical theory.

First, virtue ethics gives no clear guidance as to how to act in a specific situation.  This doesn’t seem useful to me as far as ethics go.  Is courage more important than compassion today and in this place?  What if our cultures disagree as to whether pride or humility is the higher virtue?  What about virtues that change over time within a given culture; is a woman to be reserved, submissive, and modest — or outgoing, independent, and self-assured?

More problematic, though, is that, in order for virtue ethics to be a complete ethical theory, it requires the use of another theory; it cannot stand on its own. Virtue ethics (like utilitarianism) requires that there be no absolute rules — yet there are believed to be absolute virtues.  There is no absolute rule concerning telling lies, yet honesty is revered as a virtue.  That makes no sense.

I believe virtue ethics to be useful, but only because there do exist underlying rules which are absolute.  Virtue ethics has no way of determining what are and are not virtues without an underlying theory of absolute rules. I am of the mindset that, at their core, virtue ethics and deontological ethics (see below) are quite similar — and make a useful theory when viewed side by side.  However, I would argue that “doing” is what creates “being,” and such should be acknowledged.

---

The ethical theory which I find most compelling is this one:

3. Deontological Ethics

There exist moral rules, and it is our duty or obligation to adhere to these rules.  There is an intrinsic good, and we are obligated to act in accordance with this good. Our motivations, then, are taken into account and are more important than the consequences themselves (which can rarely be known in full).

Deontological ethics differs from utilitarianism in that a right action might not bring happiness to the greatest number of people (happiness is not deemed to be intrinsically good, as it is possible for humanity to derive happiness from that which is actually evil — see Roman gladiator entertainment).  An action may very well be right and good because the individual acted in accordance with moral rules, fulfilling his obligation to do what was right — even if the result was lessened happiness for many.

In most deontological systems, these moral rules, duties, and obligations are determined by a higher being, and doing what is right is a matter of obedience to that being. I would argue that God has determined what is right and wrong based on his own nature.  And that, when we are obedient to him, our nature becomes more like his.

There is a strong correlation here, in my mind, between deontological ethics and virtue ethics. I might argue that God’s virtues are what we seek to embody, and that we do this based on a God-given system of moral rules.  The more obedient we are, the more virtuous we become. So I see these two theories as a sort of puzzle… of the “which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg” type.

I believe the virtues came first (in the nature of God), but that these virtues are incapable of guiding our everyday decision-making processes until we actually possess them.  I am able to embody these virtues, though, through continued obedience to moral rules and by the transformation of the Holy Spirit in my life. Over time I actually become an honest person, rather than an individual who merely follows the rules of honesty.  The rules are necessary, but the importance of the ethical system begins to diminish as I am transformed to be more like God.  [One of my major problems with virtue-based ethics theories is that if I don't possess a particular virtue, it is impossible for me to act in keeping with that virtue without first extrapolating (a) rule(s) from that virtue.]

As with any ethical theory, there are problems with deontological ethics. Many.  For instance, what do we do when we are faced with a situation such as Rahab’s?  There is a moral rule not to lie.  But it conflicts with the moral rule to revere and save lives.  Many would at that point choose the “lesser evil.”  And they would then be employing utilitarianism (or something like it) to determine what is right (or less wrong).  Also, was Jesus ever faced with a situation in which he had to choose the “lesser evil?”  And yet he remained sinless?

In my next post, I intend to divide deontological ethics into three categories. And, of course, I’ve chosen to support one of these three sub-theories.

rahab’s exchange: the lie

image courtesy of reverendmom

 

Rahab was a woman accustomed to exchanges. First it was sex for money.  Later it was her Canaanite nationality for an Israelite identity.  In the middle, though — and where we’ll focus our time — she exchanged a lie for the lives of two spies.

Here’s the scenario in brief:

Joshua’s just been commissioned by God to lead the Israelites into the promised land.  He sends a couple of spies to case the land, and especially the city of Jericho.  They head to a prostitute’s house; her name is Rahab.  Somehow the king of Jericho gets wind of the two Israelites staying at Rahab’s place and sends his thugs to rough them up a bit (or to knock them off, rather).  Rahab admits that, yes, the spies did come to her house, but they left late in the afternoon and she doesn’t know where they were going — other than out the city gate.  If the henchmen leave quickly, they might catch them.

What actually happened, though, was that Rahab hid the spies on her roof under some of that season’s harvest.  And lied to the king’s men. After saving the lives of the two reconnaissance officers, she made a deal with them:  As a result, when the Israelites took the city of Jericho, she and her family were spared.  [More on that deal in a future post.]

The Hebrew writer memorialized Miss Rahab in 11:31 of his book:

By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

James was rather fond of the prostitute as well (2:24-25):

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.  In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

It turns out that Rahab was even the great great grandmother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  (Matthew 1:5)

So here’s the big question?  Was Rahab right to offer a lie in exchange for the lives of these two spies? She’s clearly commended for her faith by the Hebrew writer.  And she’s certainly praised by James for the actions resulting from her faith.  But neither writer explicitly states that she was right to lie in this situation.

We know from scripture that lying is a sin (I won’t waste our time listing all those verses).  But is it ever right to do so? Was Rahab right to do so?  If not, what should have been her response?

Or perhaps the deeper question… are we sometimes expected (or forced) to choose between the lesser of two evils? Or, in these situations, does one of these “evils” cease to actually be evil — and instead become good?

I’m throwing the questions out there today and in my next post will share my thoughts on the subject — as well as some of the snobby theologian lingo used to describe it.  I also intend to explain why this subject has been of particular interest to me of late.

 

For other posts in this series on famous exchanges in the Bible, see:
adam and eve’s exchange
jacob and esau’s exchange

 

jacob and esau’s exchange

image courtesy of ecoki.com

[This is a series on famous exchanges in the Bible.  The first post (and by far the best one so far) in this series can be found here: adam and eve's exchange.]

the situation

Esau comes home from a long day out in the bush (that’s what we call it here in Africa), and he’s starving.  Jacob’s been cooking some soup, and Esau asks for a bowl of it.  Jacob’s response:  ”Swear you’ll give me your birthright.”  Esau does, and then he enjoys some soup.

what I don’t like about this story:

• The kid brother duped his older sibling. I think we all know this isn’t how it’s supposed to work.  One of the God-given privileges of being the oldest brother is the ability and the right to use deceit, cunning, and pretense in order to take advantage of younger siblings.  Jacob should’ve been doing his brother’s chores for a week in exchange for a “super valuable stick I found in the woods.”  Esau should’ve been tricking his kid brother into eating dog poop.  It wasn’t supposed to go down this way.  The Law of Siblings states as much very clearly.  And none of us can argue with The Law.
• It was a bowl of LENTIL soup. There wasn’t even meat in the bowl.  What were you thinking, man?  I mean, a bowl of bacon stew… with cheese in it… maybe.  Maybe.  But lentils!?  Lentils are like beans, only smaller and cheaper.  We use them for cow fodder, Esau.  Lentil soup is NOT worth a birthright or an inheritance.
• Shouldn’t Jacob have been doing something manly? I’m convinced if he didn’t go hunting with Esau, he should have had a manly reason to stay home.  Fixing the tractor, mending a barbed-wire fence, cleaning out the stables, or manicuring his rugged beard, maybe.  But he was making soup.  Lentil soup.  Sissy.

k-mart.  400 oak Street.  k-mart.

When Esau came in from the fields on that fateful day, he had no understanding of the value of his birthright.  I’m reminded of the movie, Rain Man,* in which Dustin Hoffman won an oscar for playing Raymond, an institutionalized autistic savant.  Raymond memorized phone books and addresses and could count cards in Vegas like a — well, it’s probably said of others that they count cards like “Rain Man.”  But despite Raymond’s extraordinary intellect, he didn’t understand money or anything about how it worked.

Charlie: That’s amazing. He should work for NASA or something like that
Doctor: Ray, if you had a dollar and you spent fifty cents, how much would you have left over?
Raymond: About seventy.
Doctor: Seventy cents?
Raymond: Seventy cents.
Charlie: So much for the NASA idea.

Doctor: Ray, do you know how much a candy bar costs?
Raymond: ‘Bout a hundred dollars.
Doctor: Do you know how much one of those new compact cars costs?
Raymond: ‘Bout a hundred dollars.

properly placed value and worship

When Esau came in from the fields on that fateful day, he had no understanding of the value of his birthright.  And the ability to determine and properly place value is critical in life. Without a correct understanding of what is truly important, it’s difficult to have any “quality of life.”

• I might trade my compact car for a candy bar.
• I might exchange my diploma for some gas money.
• I might sell my younger brother for a donkey.
• I might give my praise to someone who doesn’t deserve it.
• I might worship that which is not worthy of worship.

Worship starts with placing value. When we set one thing above all others, we are deeming it valuable.  And we must properly place value in order for our lives to function as they were intended.  God is the only being worthy of worship, the most valuable entity in all the world.

If we can’t properly determine and place value, our lives are gonna’ be all messed up.  And proper placement of value requires that God be praised.

* You’ve got to see this movie if you haven’t.  It’s quality.  Probably the best acting you’ll see from Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, both.

adam and eve’s exchange

image courtesy of ecosherpa.com

 

[This is the first post in a series on famous exchanges in the Bible.  There are more to come.]

A: Yes, I’m sure, woman.  That’s the one.  The tree we’re not allowed to eat from.  How many times do I have to tell you?

E: Okay, so you say this is the one.  But do you really think it’s that big of a deal?  I mean if The Almighty really didn’t want us eating strange apples from this one tree, don’t you think he would have told me about it, too?  Why are you the keeper of all commands?  The guy who goes to the grocery with a list that reads milk, eggs, and People magazine — and comes home with a box of ice cream and 8 Totino’s pizzas.  We don’t even have a freezer.  Or an oven.  And God chooses YOU to relay this monumental command to me and the rest of the world?!  Are you sure it’s this tree, the one right here in the middle?”

A: Yes, I’m sure, Eve.*  And The Great One picked me to tell because you weren’t around back then.  You were yet but a sparkle in his eye and a rib in my endoskeleton.  I’m telling you, we will die if we eat those weird looking apples.  And don’t get me started on the supermarket thing.  YOU were supposed to be MY helper — and here I am, being sent to the store for you… and sometimes for feminine products.  It’s not right.  It’s just not the way The Big Guy intended it.

E: Well, I don’t know… this talking serpent says we won’t die if we eat the kindaish-apples.  Instead we’ll just get vast amounts of knowledge.  We’ll know the difference between good and evil, Adam.  We’ll be like God.  Think of what we could do with all that knowledge — how good we could be at TicTacToe, how well our children could perform on their ACTs.  They could go to college, Adam.  At good universities.  On scholarship.  Lord knows we can’t pay for school with fig leaves and fruit.  And Cain is really interested in a career in geology; shouldn’t we encourage him to use his love of rocks for good and not evil?  And how are we even supposed to know the difference between the two without eating from that tree?  See, we need to, Adam.  We have to.

A: Uh… Eve, I’m pretty positive we’ll die if we eat the appley fruits from that tree.  The Man Upstairs said so.  And, although we don’t know exactly what this word death means, I think you’ll agree that it doesn’t sound like a walk in the garden.  And, besides, what do we need with more knowledge and greater intelligence?  Didn’t you hear me a second ago?  I used the word endoskeleton.

E: Yeah.  Impressive.  Now I’m going to have a bite of this apple.  Do you want me to save you some?

A: I really don’t think you should, Eve.  I mean it’s not like he gave us all that many rules.  We’re supposed to obey only two commands: this one about the peculiar apples and that other one to multiply and fill the earth — and it’s not like the second one’s a chore!  Let’s just stick to the fruit we know and are allowed and commanded to have.

E: But I want to be sophisticated.  Do you want any of this bizarre apple or not?  [A crunch, followed by chewing.]  Mmm… delicious.

A: I really don’t think this is a good idea, Eve.  But, then again, I’ve read studies about the myriad family problems associated with wives having higher levels of education than their husbands.  Hand it here; I’ll have a bite.

**********

It was on this day that the people of God first exchanged obedience for knowledge.  And it’s been one of the favorite activities of Christians everywhere since then.

See also:  the smart young m.div. candidate and obedience and brushing.

 

* Fellow blogger Matt Dabbs pointed out just yesterday in this post that Eve was not given her name until AFTER the fall.  I hope you’ll forgive me this inconsistency…

bo jackson and the louisiana purchase

In 1803 the United States purchased over 828,000 square miles of land from France.  This doubled the size of our young country, and those lands still today make up nearly a quarter of all U.S. territories. The Louisiana Purchase.  Price: $15 million.

Today, $15 million (USD) is barely enough to fly you to Seattle across said purchased lands.  This guy sold his blog for $15 million.  Sarah Palin was at one time offering to sell her emails for $15 million.  In Zimbabwe dollars, 15 million will barely buy you a hamburger (and there is such a thing as a 10 million dollar bill).

When I was young, I collected baseball cards — as did every other 12-year old boy who couldn’t play baseball (and many who did).  I would often brag to my dad about how I’d gotten a Bo Jackson rookie card that was worth $12, or a Ruben Sierra worth $4.  His question every time?  ”Who are you going to sell it to?”

I would respond by explaining that I didn’t want to sell it.  Instead I preferred to save it so I could sell it for more money later.*  Dad would ask, “But, do you even know anyone who would buy it today for the price you just said?”

“No, but why does that matter?” I’d counter.  ”This Beckett’s price guide says it’s worth that much.”

“Son, if you don’t have a buyer willing to pay $12, then the card’s not worth $12.”

And this was my first lesson in economics — or the first one I remember anyway.

Purchases and exchanges are about demand and perceived value. Not some list of magical and imaginary prices in a Beckett’s price guide or a Kelley’s blue book.  What is this item worth to its owner, and what is it worth to the purchaser?  I get a really good deal when what I want is worth very little to the guy holding it.  That’s also when he gets a good deal.**

I intend to start a short series in the next week or two on “Famous Exchanges in the Bible.” I’ve got a list that I’ll have to narrow down a bit.  But I’d love to ask you guys for help; can you think of any famous purchases, trades, or exchanges in the Bible that you’d want to read about on aliens and strangers?

 

*I still have all of those baseball cards.  I’ve never sold even one.

**For the record, though, I think the French got ripped during this whole Louisiana Purchase thing.