Sunday, December 16, 2007
The Wrong Brothers
Flight.
I have a theory. It goes something like this. Humans like to define the boundary. We like to understand exactly where the point is that, once crossed, we will be in the wrong. The reason we want to do this is so that we can go as far as possible towards crossing the line without actually crossing it. So we can 'toe the line'. This is to enable us to get as much of the things we want (but know are wrong) as possible, without actually crossing the line and doing the thing that is wrong.
This perhaps needs an example. I'm going to take this from a Christian point of view, but the point can be extended beyond that. The bible tells us do not commit adultery. So, for example, a man and a woman might go on a date, head back to her house together for a nightcap, smooch a bit, and go as far as they possibly can, but as long as they doesn’t actually complete the act, they will say, “No, I never committed adultery.” And they will be telling a technical truth. In their minds, in their desires, they did, but as far as physically going through with it, they are innocent. They have kept the commandment and can pat themselves on the back.
I hope that the majority of my readers can see just how ludicrous this kind of justification is, but it is a justification that has been used throughout history. Jesus himself had to deal with it. I think this is part of the reason why he says 'I tell you the truth, anyone who even looks at a woman lustfully is committing adultery with her in his heart'. Living up to God’s law is not just about obeying the letter of the law, but obeying the spirit - obeying the ideas that are behind them! The command not to commit adultery is (to my mind) one that springs out of a realisation that adultery is a bad thing. It destroys relationships, it shatters families, it hurts people, and it besmirches the great gifts that God has given us.
Once we understand and accept that, the next step is obvious. The command was to not commit adultery, but even taking the first step down that long slippery road will have similar (but less pronounced) effects. So we should not even take that first step. In fact, once we accept this, we do not need to know exactly where that boundary line is. The only reason to define the exact limit of where we can't go is if we are already toeing that line and living in dangerous territory. We instead know that the boundary is somewhere way off in the distance, and we are going to work really hard to never get close enough to it that defining its exact location matters.
Another point worth noting is that the closer we are to the line, the easier it is to look down and notice that we have accidentally put a foot across it.
Now I want to take this point and apply it to something a little more controversial. I think the majority of people will agree with me on what I have said about adultery, but what about taxation? When asked about paying taxes, Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
I think most people will agree with me that the loopholes in our law which allow the people earning the most money of all in the country to pay close to no tax are completely unfair, and such a thing would be close to if not well over toeing the line here, but what about the rest of us? Should we be hunting for every possible deduction, even the ones that are dubiously justifiable? Should we be paying an accountant hundreds of dollars to find ways to massage the way we express our expenses to fit tax law and thus be deductible?
Or should we just take a step back, and gladly give what we are required to be giving?
(I'm not saying that we should not be claiming anything, just that some of the things some accountants will tell us to claim are pushing us closer and closer to toeing and eventually crossing that line.)
Something to think about anyway.
I have a theory. It goes something like this. Humans like to define the boundary. We like to understand exactly where the point is that, once crossed, we will be in the wrong. The reason we want to do this is so that we can go as far as possible towards crossing the line without actually crossing it. So we can 'toe the line'. This is to enable us to get as much of the things we want (but know are wrong) as possible, without actually crossing the line and doing the thing that is wrong.
This perhaps needs an example. I'm going to take this from a Christian point of view, but the point can be extended beyond that. The bible tells us do not commit adultery. So, for example, a man and a woman might go on a date, head back to her house together for a nightcap, smooch a bit, and go as far as they possibly can, but as long as they doesn’t actually complete the act, they will say, “No, I never committed adultery.” And they will be telling a technical truth. In their minds, in their desires, they did, but as far as physically going through with it, they are innocent. They have kept the commandment and can pat themselves on the back.
I hope that the majority of my readers can see just how ludicrous this kind of justification is, but it is a justification that has been used throughout history. Jesus himself had to deal with it. I think this is part of the reason why he says 'I tell you the truth, anyone who even looks at a woman lustfully is committing adultery with her in his heart'. Living up to God’s law is not just about obeying the letter of the law, but obeying the spirit - obeying the ideas that are behind them! The command not to commit adultery is (to my mind) one that springs out of a realisation that adultery is a bad thing. It destroys relationships, it shatters families, it hurts people, and it besmirches the great gifts that God has given us.
Once we understand and accept that, the next step is obvious. The command was to not commit adultery, but even taking the first step down that long slippery road will have similar (but less pronounced) effects. So we should not even take that first step. In fact, once we accept this, we do not need to know exactly where that boundary line is. The only reason to define the exact limit of where we can't go is if we are already toeing that line and living in dangerous territory. We instead know that the boundary is somewhere way off in the distance, and we are going to work really hard to never get close enough to it that defining its exact location matters.
Another point worth noting is that the closer we are to the line, the easier it is to look down and notice that we have accidentally put a foot across it.
Now I want to take this point and apply it to something a little more controversial. I think the majority of people will agree with me on what I have said about adultery, but what about taxation? When asked about paying taxes, Jesus tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
I think most people will agree with me that the loopholes in our law which allow the people earning the most money of all in the country to pay close to no tax are completely unfair, and such a thing would be close to if not well over toeing the line here, but what about the rest of us? Should we be hunting for every possible deduction, even the ones that are dubiously justifiable? Should we be paying an accountant hundreds of dollars to find ways to massage the way we express our expenses to fit tax law and thus be deductible?
Or should we just take a step back, and gladly give what we are required to be giving?
(I'm not saying that we should not be claiming anything, just that some of the things some accountants will tell us to claim are pushing us closer and closer to toeing and eventually crossing that line.)
Something to think about anyway.
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 08:37 
Comments:
<< Home
well written.
I think, as Christians, we can be lights for others. When I get my tax done at an accountant, I always get asked to add more to specific deductions such tools, charities, etc. I always decline and only claim what I have actually spent. The accountant is usually astounded.
I think, as Christians, we can be lights for others. When I get my tax done at an accountant, I always get asked to add more to specific deductions such tools, charities, etc. I always decline and only claim what I have actually spent. The accountant is usually astounded.
# posted by 
: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:38:00 am
: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:38:00 am
While (for once) I agree with the bigger part of what you said, it bothers me that you'd say the act of adultery "destroys relationships" or "shatters families". You have to understand that people commit adultery for a reason - because they aren't happy. Now, I agree it's not the right way to handle problems in your relationship, of course! But too often people treat it as the cause of a relationship breakdown - they blame the third person, using names like "homewrecker" and such, and refuse to admit that their "home" was "wrecked" before the other person even came along. It's always been something which bothers me.
On a note completely unrelated to that, I'm glad to hear how happy you are ^_^
Also, to anonymous: I think, as good people, we can be lights for others - religion is really irrelevant to a good example. Though, I don't think that not claiming legitimate deductions, most of all charitable donations, is any kind of shining example - I'm not saying it's bad, but there's no reason that it's particularly noble. Going against the spirit of the law is gouging for more than you deserve, not accepting legitimate tax breaks for giving away your money to the needy.
On a note completely unrelated to that, I'm glad to hear how happy you are ^_^
Also, to anonymous: I think, as good people, we can be lights for others - religion is really irrelevant to a good example. Though, I don't think that not claiming legitimate deductions, most of all charitable donations, is any kind of shining example - I'm not saying it's bad, but there's no reason that it's particularly noble. Going against the spirit of the law is gouging for more than you deserve, not accepting legitimate tax breaks for giving away your money to the needy.
Fox,
I don't disagree with you. Something like that usually will be an indicator of bigger problems. I don't however feel that invalidates the point I was trying to make.
Also I think Annonymous's (Do I know you annonymous?) point was that this is an area where Christians should be, and often are noticeably different from the majority of the world. It does not preclude other good people from doing it, but it is one area where we should be seen to be above average in how good we are, because of the way we, as a group, act. And in being seen that way, people may ask, why is it that so many Christians are 'good' people.
Post a Comment
I don't disagree with you. Something like that usually will be an indicator of bigger problems. I don't however feel that invalidates the point I was trying to make.
Also I think Annonymous's (Do I know you annonymous?) point was that this is an area where Christians should be, and often are noticeably different from the majority of the world. It does not preclude other good people from doing it, but it is one area where we should be seen to be above average in how good we are, because of the way we, as a group, act. And in being seen that way, people may ask, why is it that so many Christians are 'good' people.
<< Home
