Breaking an obligation is the true nature of sin.
This is yet another in my line of examinations of certain questions that are arising from the exploration of the topics of my second novel - whose synopsis is being written as I write this. This is not supposed to gather together any real answers - perhaps just more questions. But I am trying to get at a deeper underlying truth, and I'm willing to let my brain take any path to get there. So I hope you stick around and enjoy the ride and maybe we'll arrive at some deeper insight together.
We all have obligations - unwritten promises we make to others as human beings that we are bound to follow by the very code of ethics we live by. If you believe in C.S. Lewis's view of the world, these obligations exist whether we acknowledge them or not because Good is a real thing, as is evil, and we all know in our heart what it is to do good and to be good. We are obligated to be good - therefore, when we aren't good, we have broken our obligation and sinned.
But what are we obligated to do? What is the bare minimum we can get away with? Consider walking down the street of just about any town in this nation and being approached by a homeless person asking you for a dollar. For the sake of argument, you have the dollar in your wallet. You look at this homeless person and your immediate thought might be, I'd really like to give this person the dollar, but how do I know he's really hungry? How do I know he won't use it for drugs or drink? If I give him the money and he gets drunk or high, aren't I partially responsible for that behavior? But... what if I don't give him the dollar and he goes hungry, or can't find shelter, or ends up robbing someone to get the money that he needs? Am I responsible for that behavior as well? Would it be better if I just fed the person myself? Took him to a place and bought him lunch? But then, what if he started telling me the story of his life and I discovered that he also needed a place to stay? Shouldn't I invite him home with me and let him stay in my spare bedroom? But what if he's a criminal or a rapist or mentally ill? Shouldn't I find him treatment? Shouldn't I turn him in to the authorities so he can be rehabilitated? And what of my own needs for the dollar? Should my family go hungry? Should my car run out of gas? And what about the next homeless guy on the street that I see? Wouldn't I have to give him a dollar too? And care for him too? But what if this guy is Jesus and I go to heaven and see Him again and He reminds me that I didn't give Him the dollar? Wouldn't it be better if I just hope that he goes away and that I don't have to think about all this and I'll just have to remember not to come down this street again next time?
Our obligations begin the second we meet someone. They become our responsibility. We can try to avoid these obligations by not meeting people, but that is plainly impossible. For once we've met someone, is it not our obligation to take care of that person, to care for that person, to try and help that person in any way we can? And what about our obligations to people we don't know or don't see? Is it not our obligation to try and care for people that we know to be in trouble even if we've never met? Does our obligation to the people of Louisianna end because we don't know anyone affected by Hurricane Katrina? Clearly, that is not the case. Clearly, as a human being, living in a society, and connecting with people on a normal basis, the amount of obligations we have to all the people we see or don't see is astronomical in size. And every time we do not fulfill an obligation, every time we fail to help in some way, we feel bad because we have sinned. That is an awful lot of sin in our lives. That is an awful lot of things to be responsible for.
Of course, this is Friday, and I am obligated to remind you that as bad as this blog might make you feel right now, there is a silver lining to all this obligating that flows naturally from this discourse and that should make you feel so much better. There are 6 billion people on this planet today. And your obligations are to each and every one of them. But there are obligations also include you. There are 6 billion people on this planet right now who are obligated to look after your well being. Now, doesn't that put a smile on your face?
I will continue this discussion on Monday with Part Four - Free Will.
5 comments:
Everyone responsible to and responsible for everyone else? Will, you're sounding like a Commie. This is America...it's everyone for him/herself.
Randal - Without going into too much detail (especially since I've just started the first draft of the synopsis and it'll probably change 80% before I finish it), the 2nd novel is about a city that exists outside of time. That's all I'm going to say right now, but think Lake Woebegone meets Logan's Run.
Steve - I think all governments try to establish rules that they think will force us to be responsible to each other. Communism wants everyone to be the same by providing us with universal employment, housing and health care (and Vodka ;) Democracy believes that we all have an equal right to our own opinions and that each person's opinion is an important contribution to the whole. There are other varying degrees of thought here, but in essence, the deeper truth is that we are all responsible for each other. And there are no laws that can change that.
Will - How can I possibly have an obligation to someone in a little village in India or Chad? To say "the deeper truth is that we are all responsible for each other. And there are no laws that can change that." ...sounds nice, and I would fully expect lots of people to be able to produce Bible quotes that tell us this is what we should be doing, but is there any real way people can implement this?
If not, what's the point in saying it as if it's realistic and achievable. To me, the above quote is an unachievable ideal.
I think the truth is deeper than you think, Steve. You say you have no obligation to a little village in India and Chad and yet, I think its not only natural that you do, its inevitable as well. We are a communal species. If a villager in distant Africa contracts AIDS and doesn't feel any obligation to his fellow human beings, what difference does it make if he spreads the disease. After all, he's going to die anyway, right? Or... what does it matter if said villager in Chad decides to end his life by flying a plane into a building. Its not like people in the United States cares that he exists, right? That's an obvious answer that is actually happening today. But from a more global perspective, the villager in India or Chad might hold the cure for cancer in their heads. Or they may just be a schmoe. The point is that as a community we are only as strong as our weakest link. As a human race, as a species, we can only progress as far as our slowest person allows us. There can never be peace as long as someone wants war. There can never be enlightenment as long as someone remains in the dark. Etc... We, as a species, have got to stop thinking that some people are important and the rest don't matter. That's why we end up the way we end up - every time.
Will - I think your description shows that we "affect" each other. While almost everyone recognizes that the world would be a better place if we all acted as if we had an obligation to each other, the reality is otherwise. My disagreement revolves around the idea that this obligation is some kind of "truth."
Some people feel their main, or only, obligation is to themselves. Others feel their obligations are mostly to their family, others feel they have an obligation to their tribe, ...their religion, ...their country, etc. An obligation to the world usually lies at the end of the importance scale.
I have the same complaints as you do about the way that people disregard and ignore those they don't identify with, but that's just the way people operate.
"There are 6 billion people on this planet right now who are obligated to look after your well being. Now, doesn't that put a smile on your face?" - this is the statement that got me thinking about the issue. Again, it's a nice, dreamy statement, but it's obviously (to me, at least) not realistic. I really don't think that anyone in the United States should expect someone from Bangladesh to help them out in any meaningful way if something bad happens over here. I was only half-joking when I said previously that it's everyone for themself.
I'm always the naysayer :<
Post a Comment