In his first letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul lamented, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate.” Paul was referring to a case of incest within the church. His response? He instructed the community and its elders to “hand this man over to Satan”, to “not even eat with such people”, to “expel the wicked person from among you.”
Given that, how do you think Paul would have responded to a bishop who was found guilty of failing to report child abuse? Who actively covered it up, possibly out of a misguided sense of institutional loyalty? Do you think the apostle would have considered it acceptable for the man to retain his title even if he’s no longer allowed to teach? Or do you think he would have considered him no longer fit for office?
I am finding Albert Bandura has a very useful model for identifying the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Indeed, when I consider the current crisis of refugee children being removed from their parents, I can say I’ve seen plenty of examples of all four major mechanisms and their subtypes coming into play already. The following examples have come from multiple sources:
- Behaviour reframing
- Moral, social, and economic justifications. “They’re an existential threat”
- Euphemistic re-labelling. “They’re not asylum seekers, they’re illegal immigrants”
- Advantageous comparisons. “Lesser of two evils. A strong deterrent saves more people in the long run”
- Consequence reframing
- Denial of the consequences. “They are being treated well”
- Misrepresenting the consequences “It’s actually good for them”
- Responsibility reframing
- Deflecting the responsibility. “It’s the Democrats law”
- Diffusion of responsibility. “It’s not like it’s me who’s mistreating them”
- Victim reframing
- Dehumanisation. “They’re animals”
- Blaming the victim. “Their parents are responsible for bringing them”
Have you seen any of these mechanisms in play?
A big problem I see with identity politics is that it encourages communities to indulge in rival victim narratives. Everyone wants to present themselves as the victim, as the underdog, irrespective of their comparative experience. Indeed it’s probably true to say everyone has experienced victimisation in some ways, even victimisers, so it’s a tempting game to play. But what if there’s a better way, that acknowledges our common humanity beyond our various tribalism? I think if we’re going to get there we need to focus less on “who” and more on “what”; less on personalities and more on principles. Are there behaviours we can agree on are unacceptable irrespective of the being engaging in them? Behaviours like slander, dehumanising speech, and incitement to violence? I think the real test is whether we can call it out for what it is when committed by members of our own tribe. If we’re always finding fault in other tribes but never in our own it’s a strong sign you’re captive to identity politics and failing to take a principled stance.
Was it unjust of Jesus to warn of coming judgement for Israel and the nations? Personally I see the teaching of judgement as having a lot in common with the teaching of karma. It is the simple observation that actions have consequences, socially as well as personally. Unfortunately I think the teaching has been much abused by Christians over the years, so there’s much we need to unlearn first, before we can understand it as Christ did.
Racism denies the power of the gospel to reconcile different people to God and to one another, and it is offensive to the Father who sent his Son for this very reason.
It is important to understand:
Law within the context of covenant (Deuteronomy 5:1-6);
Rules within the context of relationship (Colossians 2:20);
Obedience within the context of faith (Romans 1:5).
Ever since the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity there has been pressure for church leaders to lower the bar of morality for political leaders who support them.
As a consequence, whilst the Christian understanding of salvation has tended to remain anchored in Christ, the Christian understanding of morality has tended to lose its moorings in the life and teaching of Jesus. Sometimes finding anchor in Moses and other Old Testament figures instead, sometimes drifting even further.
I am seeing many criticism of women who dress scantily yet complain of sexual harassment.
May I offer a response by way of analogy? One could certainly question the wisdom of fighting theft by putting your jewellery in the front window of your home. But such silliness on the part of owners still doesn’t make theft any less theft.
Everytime there is a mass shooting in America and a cry goes out for gun law reform, I invariably hear someone citing Jesus’ instruction to buy swords in Luke 22:35-38 as justification for violent self defence and legislative inaction. Interpreting it as such is problematic though.
Consider: what did Jesus say the two swords were “enough” for? Clearly the two swords were nowhere near “enough” to arm all eleven disciples. It’s doubtful the two swords would have been “enough” to defend Jesus against a “crowd” either, particularly one that included professional “officers of the Temple guard”. Two swords were however “enough” to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 according to Jesus in Luke 22:37.
That Jesus was probably thinking more in terms of prophetic fulfillment than self defence is underscored by the fact that, when Peter did try to defend Jesus with a sword, he was commanded by Jesus to put the sword away.