Yesterday evening in my Psychology & Religion class, we watched "Soldiers in the Army of God", a documentary about the folks who bomb abortion clinics and such. It was disturbing to me, but not in quite the same way that I think it disturbs most people.
Something in me tends to vaguely imagine that such abominable acts are perpetrated by hateful, crazy weirdos completely out of touch with reality, people with whom I have very little in common. Maybe that's what some viewers see? It's not what I saw. I could very easily imagine being friends with at least one of these guys. I saw brave idealists with strong consciences, people of compassion who were willing to resist the sedative, conformity-inducing forces of society and make big sacrifices for what they believe in. I saw people whose decisions kind of made sense to me given certain common beliefs they had, by a utilitarian way of thinking. Their stance seems to work by similar logic to how we might justify going to war- minus the sense of legitimacy provided by governments, tradition and the social mainstream: the idea that the killing of killers may be necessary in order to protect innocent life. It's true that there were oddballs and a couple strange ideas. But I like oddballs and their notions. When Paul Hill, who shot and killed an abortion doc and his body guard, described how he felt the days leading up to the shooting-- how he was troubled by the realization of what he thought God would have him do, and his unhappy queasiness leading up to the act, it reminded me of how I felt about a duty to evangelize when I was younger. And in his position, I can easily imagine being, like him, unrepentant to the end, taking joy in facing prison and death. I can identify with his sense of "hearing from God". He expressed all this like a sensible, mild-mannered, friendly neighbor sitting in your living room.
I think I could have been one of them, in different circumstances. I saw a lot of myself in them. I can also imagine being a doctor who performs abortions, who doesn't believe fetuses are people, and is passionate about preserving desperate women's freedom and access to a relatively safe alternative to the coat hanger, proud to risk my life doing so in the face of bigoted bullying and terrorism. These are very different sorts of people, and yet both look villainous from one angle and heroic from another. They're people who act on convictions in the face of hardship and unpopularity.
In class, I vaguely and shyly expressed that I could see myself in their shoes. It's good sometimes to see that I'm not always as bold as I envision myself being when it comes to risking face before the opinions of my peers.
Do you think these terrorists did wrong? Why? How? How do you know?
Can anything be done about them, to avoid this sort of thing coming into existence?
The instructor for this class (who, by the way, is a Christian and attends a Bible church) noted the dualistic worldview of people in the Army of God (common to fundamentalist movements): how everything is black and white, clear, a battle between good and evil. He suggested something to the effect that perhaps psychologists can help people learn to think with a healthy splash of gray.
I'm a big fan of gray. Yet when I read the Bible, I see a lot black and white thinking- at least from some of its authors and heroes-- people like John or David. Is it different with them? Sometimes I get angry at the authors of the Bible, and it influences my interpretation.
How do you respond to all this? Do you have any ideas for mitigating the emergence of this type of radicalism in our society? Does the Bible encourage (or even command) simple, absolutist, polarized thinking? Have I blown a circuit in my common sensometer?
I think you may not have killed the whole circuit box, but you have definitely thrown a few breakers. Can you really imagine yourself standing in front of a doctor and his bodyguard and shooting them in cold blood? I'm thinking not, but maybe you were talking about something more emotionally based--maybe you meant that you can relate to this murderer's feelings of desperation in the face of what he saw as continued killing of unborn children and a perceived divine mandate to stop it? And maybe you were thinking about how Christ might want you to protect the children and what it might take to save lives... and there are surely quotations supporting both sides of the argument in the Bible. Whether the Bible is black and white or gray--and it is certainly gray in some places and black and white in others--I don't see you committing murder to prevent the legal killing of unborn fetuses, in any case. Rather,I can see you fighting for making killing fetuses illegal.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused about the whole "what God would have him do" bit, because it seems like killing a doctor and evangelizing don't have that much in common--except that someone may interpret them as both being inspired by a sense of duty to enact Christ's principles. I think you mean that the thought of evangelizing troubled you, not that you were apprehensive because the act you were going to commit expressly goes against so much of the Bible's content.
An interesting question to ask here is this: What do you do when you feel compelled by God to do something both illegal and expressly forbidden in the 10 commandments? Do you follow your interpretation of what you recognize as divine inspiration or do you seek help from a psychiatrist?
I think an answer to preventing behavior like the doctor killer's is to maintain that divine inspiration that diverges from the 6th commandment may need to be treated with anti-psychotics. Maybe not, but it would be a good idea to seek psychological counsel.
I've not seen this video documentary or anything like it, yet similarly I have caught myself doing more than just sympathizing with the sorts of mentalities that exist at both poles on this issue, if one does choose to see it as dichotomous. I do not. (In fact, I remember some of our musings on this subject on our way to dine at the Red Iguana a few years ago.) It is really not too difficult to lend humanity to either party, as it is with our bipartisan political system, once one understands, given a general paradigm and sense of the factors that conspire to affect one's inner life, how one comes to such beliefs. After all understanding isn't synonymous with endorsement. Though, perhaps there was a time for me when this was true. I can imagine a younger Zachary, an idealistic, perhaps dogmatic Zachary, tempted by the compassion you mention, rigorous moral standards and the kind of impassioned devotion that leads to real action in the world. Irresistible in this light!
ReplyDeletePerhaps an over active sense of empathy is to blame, or the scientist within that is quick to observe at arms length and to analyze with a keen eye but reserved and uncertain about making judgements of weighty value. As I've gone on, and chosen to deal in a palette of gunmetal grays, I have been found frustrated, even paralyzed by these sorts of internal struggles. A chronic case of moral congestion perhaps, though thankfully not entirely pervasive.
While I am not sure I have much to offer regarding this particular problem, I do believe that just as the problem itself is not black-and-white, neither should the treatment of it be. At least in the case of my own experience, that of my family and many of my close social circle (a small, biased sample I know), the Bible does seem to promote moral absolutism quite centrally. (Take the mosaic decalougue and it's authority, ubiquity.) Yet I believe that this assumed reality does not necessitate that this is the type of morality to which devotees always adhere, for two basic reasons. We are beautifully and hopelessly human, with all our quirks, stubbornness and sui generis individualism, and God's commandments as perceived by some through sacred texts does not translate as perfectly as many of us may wish. I'd assume few would disagree about this. Additionally, since for many the religious experience is not limited solely to doctrinal disciplines - it would be insulting to suggest such -, but is also influenced by such factors as community dynamics, one's own intuitions and experiences of the world, degrees of social mobility, upbringing, exposure to philosophical variety, media, etc. We are all susceptible to these, and our lives, including those most inward, intimate and personal, are accordingly impacted...
(Sorry I'm new to the blogging world. I'll keep it shorter next time...)
ReplyDeleteGiven this, I find myself leaning towards the patterns expressed in Wright's Non Zero, Singer's Expanding Circle, Rifkin's Empathic Civilization, etc. that the direction of history, the flow of metaphysics and the laws that govern them, are in an erie sense solving, or at least addressing, the problems they might have created. As globalization marches forth with deliberation, as the world is coming in better contact with its self and its diversity of belief, culture and purpose, Creation will surely be better served by greater lengths of tolerance, and not just tolerance but also understanding, empathy, knowing that in order to live the sacred lives we all intend to, regardless of our differing conceptions of sanctity, new heights of relation must be achieved.
Lo que sea, I think if we could help to facilitate and promote (and we can, praise be!) a different kind of dialogue between these seemingly hopelessly disparate groups of (radical) opinion - perhaps via social psychology and others -, one where issues could be discussed more openly and with greater respect, even if not leading to agreement they may at least greater yield progress to the aforementioned ends. Call me a pragmatist, a moral pluralist, a dreamer, naive, an infidel, whatever, at the end of the day these things tend to leave us despairing, apathetic, hopeful or some place in between; I'd like to steer as far to the right of that spectrum as possible, if only for my own sake. Besides, I think there are many more of us out there that would prefer civility and common understanding in this life to a stiff, obstinate struggle between competing moralities. As far as we know this is the only world we have, and we only have each other to share it with.
I'm reminded of a few lines from the 1970's movie Oh, God! when a supermarket worker, Jerry (John Denver), corners the character of God (George Burns) in the bathroom and begins accusing and interrogating Him about all the unsolved problems in the world (including presumably that of "pro-life terrorism"):
Jerry: Then you don't care!
God: Of course I care. I care plenty. But what can I do?
Jerry: What can you do? But, you're God!
God: Only for the big picture. I don't get into details.
Jerry: Then whatever happens to us...
God: Happens!
Jerry: You mean there's no plan, no scheme to guide our destinies?
God: A lot of it is luck.
Jerry: You don't control our lives?
God: I gave you a world and everything in it. It's all up to you.
Jerry: But we need help!
God: That's why I gave you each other.
I think your instructor is right to encourage a 'healthy splash of gray.' My question is, who decides the gray? And how does one be gray and not water down their core beliefs? My gut reaction to Pro-Life Terrorists (and interestingly, I am a friend of one.. she was arrested and put in a mental health institution for causing a ruckus in our local Planned Parenthood Clinic.. to my knowledge, she is still there).. any rate, my reaction is that it is God who is judge. Our role in the Gospel is to be messengers of hope in Jesus Christ and not continue the story of hate and violence. But I don't think it is completely black and white in HOW we present this message in scripture. Sometimes, presenting the message of hope means defending the weak. Props for your hard questions. Methinks you are very gray in your ability to identify with both camps. Keep up the great thoughts!!
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenny:
ReplyDelete1. First, concerning the 6th commandment, while in the end I do lean toward your application of it, I’m not convinced the issue is quite so clear-cut. The command not to kill would appear to be a general rule, to which there are exceptions. For example, elsewhere in the Old Testament, God tells people to kill in war and for the sake of justice. The Army of God people reference Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed”. Also, Exodus 12:12 commands murderers to be put to death. Perhaps these terrorists see their actions as falling under these exceptions, especially given that the government is, from these people’s perspective, protecting the ‘murderers’ rather than the innocent?
I can’t think of any Bible passages to make the following point, but it seems that many people also believe God would make an exception for killing in self-defense, in defense of one’s family’s lives, and perhaps in defense of the innocent in other circumstances too. Certainly this is a common understanding in the case of police, for example. But perhaps the “legitimate authorities” (official government courts, police and military) are really the only ones who get exceptions to the rule? I welcome responses to that idea.
To me, this makes it less obvious that Paul Hill was consciously violating the 6th commandment, or that it was clear to him that God would never command such a thing as what he did.
2. Second, I should explain my analogy between evangelism & acts of terrorism, as well as imagining myself in these people’s shoes. What I experienced with evangelism was a sense of overwhelming fear for others leading to a sense of duty that motivated me to do things I ordinarily would not do. In my case, it drove a shy, awkward, socially sensitive fellow who would rather keep to his own business to go out and initiate what seemed to me like taboo, potentially embarrassing conversations with complete strangers, and without getting much social support from experienced friends: way out of my comfort zone. In retrospect, I think there was something unhealthy going on there, but that’s beside the point.
Now suppose instead of folks burning in hell, I was driven to fear by the thought of millions of innocents being murdered daily. Suppose taking shocking, seriously counter-cultural action was already part of my identity—that I was already thinking of myself as being called to a sort of a prophetic role. For better or for worse, I already have elements of that in me. Suppose also that I had a much broader comfort zone (it is in fact broader now than I think most people’s are). Suppose also that my social development had followed a trajectory of focusing more and more on abortion as a key problem and society and being spurred more and more to take big risks to combat it. Suppose I’d fallen in with friends of a similar mind, and we proudly rejoiced in our counter-cultural identity while spurring one another on to bold acts. If life had happened that way for me, could I imagine doing what Paul Hill did? Disturbingly, I think I could. And I could, like him, affirmatively credit God with designing the development, impulses and voices that got me there. And like him I could appropriate Biblical support for coping with it. Maybe I already have (inappropriately, I would say) credited God for certain life developments in this fashion.
3. Third, while maybe the Army of God folks could benefit from psychological counsel, they sure didn’t look like bonafide psychotics to me—at least not in a way that would let us rule out a large portion of positively regarded religious figures in history. I think Paul Hill belonged in the regular prison system where he was, not in a mental institution. And I don’t think he would have sought out or listened to a psychologist or psychiatrist. Although, some heading down that path might, and I’m interested in the question of how that counselor or physician should respond.
Tom, these sorts of things terrify me that radicalism is not attached to any one belief system, political party or country. It can be everywhere from anyone. But the fear of radicals permeating everything is just what has brought us to an undefined and unending war on such an intangible thing. The actions of murder are the crime, but it stems from the innermost thoughts that we cannot police. The ironic thing is that for me, in attempts to avoid gray, simply because gray can be so uncomfortable when you try to reconcile tension, but so convenient when you are caught in a trap by a gadfly of sorts, that I find my solace in a sort of radicalism myself. As I think you already know, I would call myself a pacifist (but not passive) because I feel that fault can always be found in violence. There are always two or more sides, and compassion people can always put themselves in many different shoes. But if you are so boldly defending something like life, then you better be consistent and respect all life. No terrorism, no death penalty, and I would argue fair treatment of nature, animals and your own health. This is a radical position, but I value it because it is fairly consistent since these pro-life terrorists are so obviously contradictory. However there are contradictions to my stance, but when pressed I rarely feel too cornered. It may not be perfect, but a better shade of gray for me. I believe last time we spoke I was telling you about the book I was reading "Under the Banner of Heaven" which also talks about socially unacceptable acts committed by FLDS at the perceived direction of God. As Troy, pastor at Capital says, Be bold where the Bible is bold. Where there are many gray areas, have grace to those around you. In the end, I think we all struggle with radicalism if we look critically at anything, because black and white create nice lines, easy steps, and direction. It comforts many of us, while often harming many others. Perhaps it all comes down to pride.
ReplyDelete