Breaking and Entering: Legalizing an Illegal Act
May 6, 2008 by haytkir
From time to time we are asked to take actions that in some contexts would be considered illegal activity. At times we are asked by companies to perform actual illegal endeavors. Discerning the difference between a legal illegal activity and an illegal illegal activity can be hard to one such as myself, uninformed with the jungle that is the legal world today.
An example of a legal illegal activity would be a company that asks us to break into their own office and seize property, documents and equipment. While under normal circumstances this would not be a legal course of action, with their permission and legal documentation of said permission the action becomes permissible and legal.
On the other hand there are certain situations that are not so easily defined. I have learned in the last year that the operation of businesses and companies can be a convoluted and messy business. Company A owns 1/3rd of Company B. The other 2/3rds is owned by a collective of companies, some of which are also partially owned by Company A. Company C is a subsidiary of Company B but owns portions of the collective that owns the aforementioned 2/3rds of Company B. So who has the authority and legal decision making power to decide that we have permission to break into Company B’s office and take property?
When corporate impropriety and employee misbehavior becomes known to the decision makers of a business there is often a gut-reaction of desiring immediate and decisive action with little forethought. This behavior is understandable, your coworkers and employees can be in some instances also your friends and people who you trust. A CEO faced with betrayal at the hand of an employee will want to have the situation fixed as quickly as possible.
However, this is not always the best decision.
What is at the root of this scenario is something I’ve struggled with for the past few years. Legality, permissibility, and the definition of justice.
In a one-minute blog nutshell I have come to the conclusion that much as there are criminal and civil cases. So also can laws be divided into what I call “moral” laws and “civil” laws. The moral laws are actions that are almost universally considered wrong and evil. Murder, rape, torture and so on. This is a fundamentally wrong action that a human should never engage in.
The other kind of law is the civil law. An example of this would be the speed limit. There are many people who I am sure are capable of driving at faster speeds safely. However, not everyone in society has the same driving skill and capability. So we give up the freedom to drive however we please and obey traffic laws for the maintenance of a safe society and for the good of other people.
Breaking the speed limit is not fundamentally “wrong” or “evil”. We do, however, retain the responsibility of following this law for the benefit of the community of humans that we live with.
So let us now take a look at lying. Those with a Judeo-Christian background are familiar with the admonishment since childhood that, “You shall not lie.” A familiar enough commandment and in general I would hold to the belief that lying is an action best refrained from engaging in.
On the other hand there are several Biblical instances where lying is portrayed not only as a good action but as being in keeping with the will of God.
The commandment specifically referenced occurs twice.
Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.”
Deuteronomy 5:20 “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.”
The Hebrew translation, I borrow from Levitt.com. Be aware that you read this from the right to the left.
The Catholic church interprets this as meaning: “The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.”
(Vatican Online Library: Catechism of the Catholic Church: Section 2464)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism interprets this as:
Q76: What is the Ninth Commandment?
A76: The Ninth Commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.[1]1. Exod. 20:16
Q77: What is required in the Ninth Commandment?
A77: The Ninth Commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and of our own [2] and our neighbour’s good name,[3] especially in witness-bearing.[4]1. Zech. 8:16
2. I Peter 3:16; Acts 25:10
3. III John 1:12
4. Prov. 14:5, 25Q78: What is forbidden in the Ninth Commandment?
A78: The Ninth Commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudical to truth,[1] or injurious to our own [2] or our neighbour’s good name.[3]1. Rom. 3:13
2. Job 27:5
3. Psa. 15:3
One can see that at first glance the topic is quite simple. We are taught both by society and by a variety of religions that lying is not a good action. For example the Quran has the ten commandments incorporated in a manner similar to the Jewish and Christian commandments:
“Do not withhold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart.” (Qur’an 2:283)
The atheist Moral Code of the Builder of Communism states:
7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, unpretentiousness and modesty in social and private life.
and
9. Irreconcilability towards injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism, and profiteering.
As we can see the act of lying is considered bad from many viewpoints and honesty is lifted up as a virtue of a good person. There are variations within different cultures. Some cultures consider it reasonable to lie to outsiders as is often shown as an example of the much maligned Romany people. Yet, it is still a variation on the principle that, dishonesty is a bad action.
Let me now return to Scripture. Other belief systems have similar intricacies of their own that I am not qualified to consider at this time so I will look at Christian Scripture as it is the material I am most familiar with.
There are several stories that relate actions where lying was used for good.
The first is the matter of the midwives of Hebrew women in Egypt. The principle I would note here is that the Pharoah ordered the midwives to kill all male children born to Hebrew women, the midwives disobeyed and then lied to the Pharoah about why male children were still being born.
The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”
19The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”
20So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21And because the midwives feared God, He gave them families of their own.
The point to note here is that God looked kindly on this action and rewarded it. The reason for the action is stated that the midwives “feared” God which in this context is meant to mean they respected his law (one would also remember here that at this point the ten commandments had not been given to the Hebrews). Any one familiar with the works of C.S. Lewis will recognize this context of “fear” from the beavers’ description of Aslan in the “Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.”
“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he - quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
The second example is that of Rahab, a prostitute of Jericho. In one of the earliest examples of intelligence gathering in recorded history. Joshua 2 relates the story of how Rahab shelters these spies and then lies to protect their escape.
3And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.”
4But the (C)woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.
5″It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.”
6But (D)she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
And the consequences of this deception?
From Joshua 6:
24(N)They burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the [a]house of the LORD.
25However, (O)Rahab the harlot and her father’s household and all she had, Joshua spared; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for (P)she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
The value of Rahab’s actions are again referenced later in:
Hebrews 11:31 “By faith (A)Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.”
James 2: 25 “In the same way, was not (A)Rahab the harlot also justified by works (B)when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
The common binding principle I see here is that none of these people were lying to protect themselves or to cover another evil action. They were lying to protect others.
How this relates to me is that I from time to time find the need to lie to my opponents. Some of the opponents are stalkers, child molesters and the like, while others are thieves and embezzlers. The distinction between these two kinds of opponents is that the former has a specific and clear victim, often a woman or a child. The latter can at times be said to not have a specific human victim, rather the victim is a corporation or company.
In either case, I have justified to myself that lying to investigate a crime that has already occurred or for a crime that has been threatened is a reasonable and Biblically justifiable choice. I do not lie for my own benefit but to free another from fear, to free another from bondage and in the last instance to return one’s rightful property.
Very well thought out post, Kir.
Impressive that you put so much thought into. It can be pretty easy to write stuff like that off as just part of the job without thoughtfully considering what you are doing.
Much of this began when I first thought about joining law enforcement. I decided to first write a paper on whether the US justice system was worth supporting despite its faults. This led me to consider am I justified in killing despite the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” What I discovered was that Hebrew word used there is not “kill” but rather “murder” as other translations have it. The difference between killing (ending life) and murder (unjustified ending of life) is enormous.
If one is familiar with the series Firefly there is a scene where the crew mounts an assault against Adelei Niska to rescue Malcolm Reynolds. At one point it is found that Shepherd Book is preparing and arming the non-combatant portion of the crew and is asked about the “thou shalt not kill” commandment to which he responds that Scripture is a little fuzzy on kneecaps. This represents then a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture.
As such it became apparent to me that the KJV had in fact bent the meaning of Scripture. That in and of itself scared the crap out of me. How much else could’ve been misconstrued or improperly translated? Inquiring at church was met with only blind answers that attacked my integrity for questioning such a venerable translation in the first place.
The same occurred with lying. I suspect by the time I was done I had alienated most of the church just by the very act of asking whether lying could ever be “good.”
Oof, sounds like you could have benefited from talking to some of the people I respect in the church, including my dad–if for no other purpose than to know there are Christians out there who are thoughtful about their world view rather than simply dogmatic and who love to engage people in their own views and discuss differences, rather than condemn. Sorry you had that experience, man–and I’m sure you’re not alone.
That’s a shame about your queries. Though walking around a church asking if some thing is wrong is just asking to get stepped on, lol. I typically reserve conversations like that to a select two or three people.
But my guess is, had you prodded them more, you could have convinced them otherwise. Unless they believe that undercover police work is wrong. Which they are entitled to think, but would probably be hard pressed to find any reason for that opinion.
It was more tactful than just “nurr, is this wrong?” The questions were always asked of elders or pastors.
Generally I’d wait for a Bible study or such where we’d be going over a section of Scripture anyway. It’s not particularly productive to shove uncomfortable things into people’s faces.
However, I also got significant flak for going to foreign countries with no-specific-church to attend on Sundays. I tried to explain that some countries simply don’t HAVE churches that one can attend and I was told that was nonsense and I was a horrible person to knowingly walk into a situation where I would not have a church to attend.
That’s a bummer that you got that response even from elders or pastors, but I certainly wouldn’t classify your questions as an uncomfortable conversation. Most of the time you can’t wait for an opportune time for counseling.
Hopefully your church is preaching plenty of grace to go along with those heavy doses of law.
Alaska seems to have an over abundance of law-focused churches. So with complete honesty, between the charismatic churches, the orthodox churches and the fundamentalist hill-billy valley churches… I don’t have a church right now.
It’s worth noting that last I checked there are no PCA churches in the entire state.
I’m sorry that you had those experiences, Kir.
To be honest, it’s those types of experiences, coupled with a few situations that I can’t think of any other way to label except for spiritual abuse that made me leave the church.
Although I don’t think you’ll agree much with his interpretations or his socio-political leanings, you might enjoy some of Marcus Borg’s writings. He has pretty scholarly stuff, as well as conversational books.
Reading “Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time” really helped me heal and be at peace with my traumatic rift from organized Christianity.
I also found Rita Nagashima Brock’s “Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and The Search for What Saves Us” to be very healing, though hard to read at times.
Actually, I cried through most of those two books. I wish I had found them when I actually was a Christian, perhaps there would have been some way repair some of the damage.
Anyway, I think they are interesting reads for any Christian, no matter where they fall on the theological or sociological spectrum. At least I’ve received positive feedback from pretty much everyone I’ve recommended them to (I mostly recommend the Brock book to women though, but as someone who deals with broken people on a regular basis you might find it interesting), even though I would say only about half “agree” with the authors on the details.
Dood! This is rad. To put it simply; I agree.
I think that the idea that canon is non-interpretable is rapidly deteriorating in the modern church. If you want to be crude, it’s simply harder to attract parishoners if you insist on hardlining, so at least my experiences in the Seattle area have been varying degrees of liberal.
I’ve had awful church experiences and positive ones, but the most positive experiences interacting with other Christians has been at my Christian university. I think the classroom just feels more relaxed in general and people feel more open to throwing around ideas and seeing what sticks. Also: the very first thing covered in my very first class is that the KJV is garbage. This was repeated innumerable times during my college career (History major, so of course a heavy influence on the history of the church. New International version was considered the most acceptable by my history profs for accuracy if you’re interested).
Thanks for posting Chantrea and Llora!
Given that I do not trust the human mind as anything but an imperfect tool at best I’ve taken to finding multiple interlinear translations and spending some time learning how to use Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. Having four translations side by side along with the vernacular is really handy when trying to ascertain the accuracy of a translation, though it is generally overkill.
That said I’ve had a good experience with the NIV as well and is the translation I use on a daily basis. The NAS (New American Standard) translation is more literal in some aspects, so I keep a copy of that on my bookshelf.
While there is a certain amount of faith today in trusting that translations are accurate and that God would keep translations pure through out time. The number of “errors” I’ve found or researched both in the literal text and the content of Scripture have historically ended up being explainable the more accurate and complete our understanding of archaeology becomes. Consider the fact that over time and with the progress of science, Biblical accuracy has only been supported rather than refuted.
One of the major unresolvable discrepancies in my opinion is the differing accounts of Judas’ suicide. I’m not sure what to make of it, there is no logical explanation that I can reason out in my head other than that one of the descriptions is wrong… or take the easy road out and claim that it is somehow symbolic or metaphorical… which is a coward’s approach IMHO.
I should note that I’m not condemning “the church” really, as an institution it is going to be made up of people with a “sinful nature”. Any one the expects the church or Christians to be perfect are going to be eternally disappointed.
However, the church as it is today is increasingly becoming a reflection of culture and not of Christianity in my opinion. I equally have a problem with a liberal church that softens it’s message to attract people as I do with a fundamentalist church that is rigidly lawtastic and condemns anyone that does not meet their precepts.
What it comes down to is I wish I could find a church that was able to find a balance between faith and works. Above where I considered Rahab in Hebrews and James, you’ll note that Hebrew’s says Rahab was justified by faith and that in James it says she was justified by works.
The best principle I can think of when looking for a church is to think of JFK, except replace “nation” with “church”.
Ask not what your [church] can do for you, but what you can do for your [church].
I still think ’tis better to be more liberal than lawtastic when it comes to religions of all stripes. If the emphasis is on peace/love/acceptance then ideally we don’t start crusading against each other. But you should know by now that I’m a pinkocommie liberal hippie flowerpuddle!
I think we are both currently un-churched for the same reasons though. Lack of diversity in any type of church kills the discourse and creativity. If I were a pastor, I would be concerned if my church were labeled as liberal or conservative because that smacks of… tax fraud
But really, it does have a political connotation, which I feel seriously compromises the integrity of the message.
Well, that, and I just hate joining things. And the music is universally horrific.
Agreed on the peace/love/acceptance part, that should be the focus of a church. Balance however, must be maintained. I’m also bothered by the terminology being so political, but it’s the only words I have right now to describe it.
Too much fundamentalism and we have the ever present law-focused church that is insular, judgemental and just generally horrible to be around.
On the other end I see some “liberal” churches who will literally accept anything to the point of open and unequivocal sin.
The key difference I think is how the church approaches that sin.
The fundamentalist condemns it by unsympathetically passing judgement.
The liberal church accepts it to the point of endorsing the sin itself.
Both churches are wrong in my opinion.
When considering both options, I would agree with you that a church which maintains a more loving stance towards sinners is a better church than one that judges and condemns them.
I won’t go to a church that condemns and ostracises a homosexual.
However, I also won’t go to a church that tells them that what they do is OK and teach that it’s actually just fine with God.
My homosexual friends never hear my opinions on the subject unless they ask for it and when they do hear my opinions it is well after we have established a real friendship. Then, when they broach the subject they know I am not condemning them. That I remain their friend and their value as a human being is just as important to me as any others.
This does not mean that I will indicate support for their behaviour.
Does this make sense? It’s the same principle I apply to churches.
There is also the possibility that this is all a great hypocrisy on my part as knowing that we are all sinful, how can I judge a church for their behaviour on either end of the spectrum?
Maybe the best thing for me to do, is to go find the most horribly screwed up church and attend with a quiet live-by-example attitude. Almost make a mission trip out of a church.
Maybe I’m asking too much of a church to be both loving and doctrinal?
“I still think ’tis better to be more liberal than lawtastic when it comes to religions of all stripes.”
Jesus would probably agree with you.
He was constantly in opposition to the Pharisees and always found friends in sinners. Our “goodness” is just as much of a sin as our lawbreaking, really. We use our goodness as an excuse to say we don’t need a Savior, but both are equally in need.
Kir, finding a church that is both loving and doctrinal can be hard, near impossible. I won’t claim my own church fits that bill or even that I do personally. The best I can recommend is that you look for a church that tries to have active tension between the two, but knows the only reason they could ever come close to it is because of what another has done.
You’re definitely not asking too much, Kir–and believe it or not there are churches out there that try very hard to be both, there just aren’t that many, unfortunately. I know that’s why some people who have found a great church home even turn down job opportunities that would require them to move, because in the grand scheme of things–it is far more important for a Christian to be part of a healthy church community than it is to graduate our income. There is really no such thing as lone ranger Christianity, we just can’t do it on our own for long.
That said, I know it can be totally frustrating not to have an option of a “good” church–one that would fall under your final comment’s description. My sister and brother-in-law are having a really hard time finding one in New Mexico.
Knowing your high level of tech savviness, you probably read, rss, and podcast several things already but I’d definitely encourage you to check out the podcasts my church puts out. They are consistently some of the best sermons I’ve heard–they put an mp3 of the sermon up for a week on the site, which also has a cool video on the first page that reflects the mission of our church, which I think you would find refreshing–at least to know you’re not alone in your worldview!
http://citychurchsf.org/
Thanks Throttle, I’ll check it out.