Stand and Don't Fight. Please.

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: …  enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions … Galatians 5:19-20

The Goal of Retribution. 

Don’t think I had heart that one before.

In a story last night on “All Things Considered” about sentencing 14-year olds to life without the possibility of parole, the daughter of a man who had been killed by such a criminal explained why this was proper and fitting verdict.  Rehabilitation didn’t matter, nor the cruelty of the punishment, but she thought that the criminal ought to stay locked up for The Goal of Retribution. 

I must have missed the memo when the penal system’s goal was changed to retribution.

I understand that we need jails for criminals. I understand that they need to be removed from society for our safety.  I understand that justice requires some act of punishment, some penance.  I understand that it serves many important social purposes to penalize criminals.  And I even understand that they deserve it. 

But retribution?   Is that the new thing in social goals? 

If so, then we’ve finally done it.  We have institutionalized anger and hatred. 

I can surely see it.  It permeates our public conversation after all, where we seek defeat rather than debate, where disagreement can only be resolved by destruction (self- or otherwise!)  The Goal of Retribution is the perfect rule for the “us” vs. “them” world that we have created.  Enmity is not a sin, it is a necessity for survival, it is rallying cry, a fund-raising tool.

And then there’s Florida.

Not being a resident there nor an expert in that state’s legal system, I should assume that there is some logic or reason behind the “Stand and Shoot” law.  I should, but I cannot.  I was raised to believe that if you feared for your safety, you got out of the situation, preferably with some haste and purpose.  I was taught that you left law enforcement to the professionals.  I was taught that you avoided times and places where bad things can happen, that you kept a far distance from trouble.  I was certainly not taught to go looking for it.  I was taught that two wrongs did not make a right. 

But stand and shoot presumes a very different attitude, doesn’t it?  It prefers a more aggressive posture, a willingness to meet trouble with trouble, violence with violence.  It fathoms that guns are not the problem, they are the solution.  It has a goal, you know, of retribution, to get back at the criminals and the no-good types (and don’t they always look like black teenagers?) before they can do harm. 

Ah, the pre-emptive strike, you know, the world-view that gave us the wonder of the last Iraq war.  Which sure turned out well, I think. 

Giving in to the demons of our lesser nature, surrendering to the anger, hatred of our sin, is not self-protective.  It is self-destructive.  The Goal of Retribution takes into our hands what they cannot hold, should not hold, must not hold.  It moves us outside of grace and imprisons us in the violence of our own creation. 

And when we’ve shot all the teenage hoodlums, who will we shoot next? 

And what would Jesus say to that? 

I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.  Matthew 5:39

Wrong Words

He just chose the wrong words, that’s all.

That’s what he said. 

I can understand that.  As someone who makes a living with words, I’ve used the wrong ones plenty of times with a range of negative consequences, too.  I’ve been imprecise, unclear, even misleading at times.  I’ve tried to be too clever for my own good.  I even said “alleluia” out loud once on Ash Wednesday.  OK, I haven’t lost any national advertising sponsors, but that’s probably just a reflection of the differences in our stations in the world. 

No, I can totally understand using the wrong words.

Except that’s not the problem.

He may say he wishes now that he had been more circumspect in his choice of epitaphs, a little less racy (without losing his signature edge) and a little less open to the onrush of criticism and shame that came his way.  He may say he wishes now that he could have made his point and still provoked the expected emotional response from his target audience with a bit less rage and indignation from his foes.  But regardless of what words he chose, he intention was unmistakably the same.  He absolutely meant to insult Ms. Fluke, to attack her personally, to slur her standing as a way to degrade her opinion. 

It wasn’t wrong words, but bad intentions that caused this melee. 

Which is what really matters.

The over-personalization of our public conversation has moved past digging up old skeletons to outright name-calling.  We don’t even have to know anything about our opponents now to attack them, in the absence of an argument against their ideas we can just let go and take a personal shot or two.  A couple of well-placed four letter words and some prurient imagery is not just allowable – it’s the norm for free discourse in American life today.

The new default position is disparagement before deliberation, defamation before discussion.

Attack politics get better ratings, after all.  Unless you use the wrong words and chase away all of your advertisers. 

But there is, as you should know, a better way. 

“We should not betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but should apologize for him, speak well of him, and interpret charitably all that he does.”  (Small Catechism)  So says the father of the Protestant faith.  What a dramatic change that might bring to our national conversation.  How much more productive we could be if we could stop acting like a bunch of fourth graders on the playground at recess and like, though it’s almost unimaginable at this point, adults. 

Even Christian adults! 

Luther’s words, ironically, restrain me from further criticism on this topic, lest I lose my entire morning as I am compelled to confession.  I can merely say that I hope that they could suggest a better path forward for somebody. 

For all of us.