ThiemeWorks - The Missing Link

« Habits of Thought | Main | Real Politics »

December 19, 2007

A Reader Reflects on Beliefs and What Happens When They Collide with Life

Beliefs and Confrontation

by

Karen Hamp (klhamp@yahoo.com)

Two articles in the news left questions in my head. What do I believe in strongly enough to take a public stand? How and why did I form those beliefs? And what would happen if I were confronted in a personal way with that which I stood for?

In the first article, a church, attended by the sole survivor of a senseless tragedy confronts its strong work and belief that the death penalty is wrong., and weighs it against its own anger, and vengeful feelings , and its sensitivity toward one of its members.

Several weeks ago, a house was broken into, the husband was tied up, the wife murdered, the teen age daughters raped, and as the husband got loose and tried to get help, the men who broke in set the daughters on fire and they burned to death. Only the husband survived.

His church now tries to weigh its multi year, socially active, anti-death penalty stance against its anger, and the anger and anguish of the man who now has no family. For years they have used mistaken identity as a basis for actively working toward not killing criminals. There is no mistaken identity in this case. The men were picked up leaving the scene. They have used the love of Christ, and the case against vengeance in their righteous campaign, and now they confront their own feelings, and those of the surviving father and husband who is part of their own body.. There are some who are shocked at their own vehemence and vengeful thoughts and feelings. Vengeance is now a personal experience for many there.

In another story, a man in California has publicly fought to keep the expanses of desert flora, known as chaparral, natural. Others wanted to burn, burn swaths, or clear cut in order that periodic fires would not spread. The man argued that it was a natural ecosystem for birds and other life, and needed to be left natural. A few weeks ago he was on his roof with a hose in defiance of an evacuation order to save his home from fire. The fire was feeding on the burning chaparral surrounding the area of his home. He now says he understands as never before the importance of cutting the chaparral in a wide swath around buildings. And the people who have suggested cutting fire lanes thru the chaparral seem much more credible.

In both cases, people who thought they were doing the right thing are questioning the rightness of their stand. Or the way they presented it. These are good hearted, socially active people who have been coming down on the side of good for all and for the earth. And now have been knocked off balance.

They were trying to fix a world which they perceived as out of balance. And were then knocked off balance themselves when the solution they were proposing as a general rule, turned against them, in a very personal way.

Back in the 1960’s, Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest wrote a book on situational ethics. He said there were no absolute “rights” other than the law of “agape” love. He felt that all legal and ethical situations needed to be examined in relationship to loving concern.

What is the most lovingly concerned approach toward the man who lost his family and toward the humanity of the church members, and indeed, toward the men who broke into the house? What is the most lovingly concerned answer for the natural habitat called chaparral, for the people who build there, for the earth itself, whose winds, weather, and water are affected by clearing forests, burning fires, and disturbing the natural order?

What do I believe in strongly enough to take a stand? And how might I be knocked off balance? What might it take for me to be not so sure anymore that my stance or my way of presenting it was exactly “right’?

Posted by Thieme at December 19, 2007 07:27 PM

Comments

Post a comment