Expert: Edward Bode - 5/31/2008

Question
Hi Edward

I am trying to understand the status of divine laws such as the Ten Commandments and am faced with conflicting views.

I am not a theologian and do not pretend to be an expert on the Bible.

I do have a basic understanding of law in general which may or may not be relevant. I am hoping you can help enlighten me on the Biblical view.

Re the secular view:

In Australia where I live, the speed limit on country roads is 100 km/hr. If I were to go faster than that, the police would chase me down and fine me.   

If in pulling me over however, they found that I had a snake-bite victim on board who would shortly die if emergency treatment could not be obtained, they would not fine me.    

Instead, they would provide me with a high speed escort to the nearest emergency ward at more than 100 km/hr.   

They do this and are allowed to do it, because there is a recognition in the legal system that in this particular case, the law is not upholding the purpose for which it was designed - namely, that of helping to keep people safe on the roads.

In law generally, the purpose or reason that any particular law is created, is always regarded as more fundamental and relevant than the actual law itself.

Logically this must be, because laws are only created in response to the need to regulate or control something with particular outcomes in mind.

The actual outward expression of any law by way of a written statement, can only ever be a reflection of the more fundamental purpose than underpins it.

In extraordinary circumstances such as described above, we have a situation where the application of the law as described in written form, serves to betray the reason it was created. Instead of helping to reduce the risk to life and limb as intended, it is now increasing the risk to life and limb by delaying emergency medical care to a critically ill victim.

Because of the primacy of the purpose of the law over the letter, the police in these types of situations, are able to respond in a very sensible and sane manner, by providing the type of assistance which does serve the purpose for which the law was enacted in the first place, even if what they do is inconsistent with the letter of the law.

I have been told by a number of Christians who are much more educated in the Bible than me however, that Divine laws like the Ten Commandments are absolute, inviolable and must be obeyed according to the letter, regardless as to the consequences or whether or not they serve the purposes for which the laws were given in the first place.

In other words, they are saying that it is immoral to undertake the breaking of a Commandment in order to head off catastrophic consequences, even if those consequences may be at odds with the reason the Commandment was given in the first place.

A real life example occurred recently. A known sex offender broke into a woman's apartment and demanded sex. It is highly likely that he also planned the kill the woman afterwards, in order to leave no witnesses.

This woman had amazing presence of mind. She kept calm and pretended to cooperate with the offender.

Feigning an attitude of wanting to protect the interests of her attacker, she told him that if she did not turn up for work shortly, someone would probably call around looking for her and that it would be best if she called in sick.

The offender was persuaded to let her use the phone, but he kept his finger on the hook so as to be able to cut her off immediately, if she tried to raise the alarm.

Using slight of hand, the woman did not dial the number of her employer however. Instead, she dialed the number of the police.

While she had to fake a conversation with her employer, the police on the other end were able to extract enough clues from what she said, in order to rush around and make an arrest within minutes.

I guess with time to spare and someone to bounce ideas off, it might be possible to come up numerous other alternative strategies that this woman could have used that did not involve lying and deceit.

However, it seems to me that in this case, the victim was suddenly thrust into an emergency situation that precluded the opportunity for considered thought designed to evaluate the relative merits of alternative survival strategies, as impacted upon by moral imperatives.

Under the circumstances, I do not think that she had any option other than to enact the first viable strategy that came to mind.

In this light, I am struggling to think of any justification for suggesting that the woman 'sinned', by deceiving her attacker.

The absolutist view of morality holds that any lie is bad, which I certainly understand.

In the practical sense however, it seems to me that the injunction against lying and deceiving serves directly to contribute to the high level of trust and strong positive relationships that any successful community needs in order to prosper.

In the indirect sense, it probably also serves to protect life and limb because any community which adheres to this imperative, does not have to suffer the violent disputes that inevitably erupt when people are lied to and deceived.

I struggle to put my thumb on exactly what the 'badness' is in the case of the woman who was attacked.

It seems on the surface at least, to be all good because the woman saved her life and contributed to the arrest of a dangerous serial criminal who would otherwise have attacked other women.

I find it hard to swallow, that in such a pressured and emergency scenario, there is any justification for suggesting that this woman 'sinned', in adopting the strategy that she did.

How would you analyze this case in light of the Biblical injunctions against the use of deceit?

Many thanks

Richard  

Answer
I appreciate your taking the time to send an extended message of your concern about following divine law of doing good/right and avoiding evil/sin.  God's law does not contradict itself.  One can always follow God's moral principles with His grace.
I am not a moral theologian. However, I can offer some thoughts.  
As you suggest, a basic principle of moral reasoning/law is that one cannot do something evil as a means to obtain something good. The end does not justify the means.   
In your case, I did not see that the woman used a lie to avoid a grave injury to herself.  Also, the woman has a duty to protect her own life.  Moral theologians have spoken of "mental reservation" when one is obliged to veil or conceal the truth  -- to use words that of themselves are somehat ambigious, that is, containing more than one meaning.  You might pursue this line of thought with a competent moralist or priest in your parish.
I often pray that in difficult circumstances, I shall have the intelligence and the grace to know what to do morally in unexpected circumstances.
I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.  
If you would like to send a follow-up, please feel free to do do.
Best wishes, Richard.