DANGER! DANGER! The Spirit of the Law

As promised, here’s a look at some of the possible dangers of embracing a ‘Spirit of the Law’ understanding of the Gospel. These are not necessarily connected with such an understanding, but from my experience are more closely linked with the ‘Spirit of the Law’ than the ‘Letter of the Law’. I still believe that there is more value than harm in a ‘Spirit of the Law’ understanding, but recognize that there are some tendencies if aspects of that understanding are extrapolated and applied incorrectly, that could lead to negative and spiritually damaging results.

Sometimes being obvious is necessary. 

Many of these difficulties are related to those that come for those that tend to the progressive, liberal or intellectual side of the spectrum, so as I address the concerns it may be with slightly broader strokes that touch a bit more than the narrowed realm of the Spirit of the Law.

Here are the three main issues that can arise from the ‘Spirit of the Law’ worldview:

1.    Motivations Trump Actions

2.    Discount the Role of Authority

3.    Relativistic Worldview

To address them one by one, beginning, naturally, with the first.

1.    Motivations Trump Actions

While operating under the SL worldview, it can become tempting and alluring to say that motivations matter more than actions. Motivations play an undeniably large role in determining the quality and righteousness of our behavior, but I feel that this attitude can become a scapegoat for inaction. If taken to far, all one needs to do is want to do good—to hope that good and light will triumph, whilst sitting by doing nothing. I think that the well-known Batman quote is particularly applicable here, “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.”

Batman understands that our motivations must translate into action or they are meaningless. We cannot be defined by our motivation, unless that motivation is manifest in choices. The SL understanding complicates this, by forcing us to really examine someone’s motivations, circumstances and overall situation before making a judgment call, while a legalistic, Letter of the Law interpreter could rather simply distinguish between what was and was not ‘right’.

2.    Discount the Role of Authority

As the SL framework relies inherently on personal revelation, there may be a tendency to dismiss authority figures and revelation and guidance that they may receive on our behalf. The balance between personal revelation and priesthood authority can be a difficult one to strike and is an incredibly personal journey and decision. There are certain things that are required for full participation as a member, but they are relatively few and still up to the individual to interpret and apply as they understand, in most situations—leaving the process between an individual and the Lord.

It can be tempting to discount quotes and statements from priesthood leadership when it conflicts with our personal understanding. However, I think it is important to maintain humility and to always strive to reconcile what we hear with what we have felt. To bring a sense of harmony and to always be ready to reinterpret our past understandings, while also being able to recognize the fallibility of Church leadership. Mistakes are made and those should not cause trauma that damages our eternal salvation. Finding the harmony with personal and authoritative revelation is important and individual.

3.    Relativistic Worldview

While adopting a SL framework, it can be tempting to slip into a purely relativistic worldview, where right and wrong is dictated by circumstance and culture, with no absolutes. Such an approach is more complex than I can really go into here, but I personally believe that there are absolutes, but that those absolutes are more nuanced and involved than simple shall’s and shalt not’s can truly convey. Thus the need for the SL worldview. Again, the possibility is that all things become free game.

I think we need to understand that under typical circumstances, the letter of the law suffices, but that the Spirit of the Law provides, if anything, a stricter interpretation of what we should and should not do. This may occasionally violate the Letter of the Law, but generally speaking is in line with grander principles than the simplistic expressions that we have convey.

He's about to say something very important. You can tell from his raised fingers, poised for bringing dramatic emphasis.

The words of Albus Dumbledore are fitting here (taken from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the film, although, the text is largely in the book, albeit not in quite the same construction as it is presented in the film).

“Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.”

We all face difficult times. I think it is particularly important in following the Spirit of the Law to understand that we should be choosing what is right and not what is easy (at least most of the time. It is possible that the easy and the right choose are the same, depending on how good and pure your soul is. Although, choosing right may be like Wolverine letting out his claws, “It hurts every time…”)

Two Sides of the Law: Letter and Spirit

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

#Sorrynotsorry for starting off with a verse that references circumcision. The rest of the verse makes up for it.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matt 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Lady Justice: probably a fan of the Letter and so much the Spirit.

Anyway, looks like what matters is Love. The Beatles knew what was up. Yet, how does that really influence the idea of the Letter vs the Spirit of the Law? Some argue that there is no difference and that if you truly obey the Letter than you also obey the Spirit or vice versa. However, I’m not quite so sure.

Let’s take a look at some fairly uncontroversial moral laws- don’t kill, lie or steal.

Are there exceptions to each of these? I would say so and if you think for a few seconds you can probably think of some yourself, but I’ll give you some, just to put us all on the same page.

Don’t Kill- self-defense, war, The Book of Mormon. Present day, let’s say some dude comes up to you and pulls out a gun, shoots the two people with you and then points it in your direction, threatening to shoot you. If you had the means, would it be morally justifiable and in keeping with the Law to kill him? Yeah, probably. Yet, you definitely took the letter of the Law and snapped off a few pieces, breaking it fair and square.

Be Honest- First, there’s some ambiguity as to what the letter of the law actually entails- do you have to share any and every thought and opinion that you have? If someone asks if they look good, do you need to answer honestly? If you intentionally mislead someone about your intentions to go to their shindig, not outright lying, but never intending to go are you being dishonest? (Let’s hope not, since I may or may not do this frequently, doing my best to never commit to things I have no intention of going to because if I do commit then I’ll feel obligated to go and that’s just the worst.)

Most of those are relatively benign, but a pretty serious moral dilemma could be if you were hiding someone that was in danger and you were asked point blank if you knew where they were, would you lie to save this person’s life or would you be honest and likely cause them suffering and pain and potentially death?

Again, seems like a pretty obvious choice. Lie and save a life. Some would throw this under the lesser of two evils category, but I find that dichotomy frustrating and think that the idea of the letter and spirit of the law allows for necessary ambiguity that God knew would be around us.  Anyway, lying breaks the letter of the law, but I think preserves the spirit of the law in this instance.

Don’t Steal- We’ll use Jean Val Jean as an example. His family was starving, so he stole a loaf of bread, since he had no other recourse. Should he have let his family starve or was it the right choice to steal bread? Or maybe even Robin Hood (admittedly, Robin Hood is a bit of a controversial pick, but brings up an arguable point). The point is that there may be some circumstances where it is morally justifiable to steal.

Hopefully those examples provide some clarity to the idea of the Letter vs the Spirit of the Law.

As I alluded to above, I think that the idea of the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law allows for the ambiguities of life. Whereas some people argue for the idea of choosing lesser evils, I think that semantically and philosophically, the letter and spirit of the law is more appealing. The idea of choosing the lesser of two evils inherently suggests that you are forced into situations where you have to make an evil choice. I don’t think that that’s the case and I think that we would find ourselves in that situation much more frequently than we should.

To account for this complexity I think God understands and purposefully gives us the Letter of the Law, with the understanding and expectation that we will learn the Spirit of the Law, which is what really transforms us and allows us to live morally responsible lives within the ambiguous complexity that we find ourselves in.

There can be a danger here of overstepping and refuting the entirety of the Letter of the Law in the name of the Law’s Spirit, but that’s a post for another day.

Skydiving or How the Media Influences Us

I want to go skydiving. I’ve had the desire since I was 7 or 8 years old. This desire tracks back to a specific moment, watching a fine piece of cinematic genius (read that last phrase with as much dripping sarcasm as you can muster) that we know as The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers Movie (enjoy the theme song).

 

Do you feel the nostalgia?

Yes, The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers Movie has had a profound and lasting impact on my life. I love(d) the Power Rangers. Who didn’t? Well, those poor children whose parents wouldn’t let them watch it probably don’t—poor souls. To complete the connection for those that have not been blessed with the opportunity of watching the movie, the opening scene is the Rangers skydiving. [Sidenote: I recently rewatched the movie and it is delightful. The sweet nostalgia coating the melodramatic, abysmal acting enough to make it hilarious.]

So, something as simple as a short scene in a movie has given me a desire to do something for over a decade, almost two. Seems crazy, right?

I can trace the influence of a few other things fairly clearly, but wonder about the hidden influence that entertainment has had on my psyche and perception of the world. Some more illustrations may help clarify the point.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Ever since I watched this when I was 16 or so, I associate the word “shrubbery” with the Knights Who Say Ni, which in some locations can lead to me struggling to stifle laughter where it would otherwise be very inappropriate. My sincerest apologies if I have corrupted anyone reading this with my purposefully muddied and unclear allusion.

‘90s Superhero Cartoons. First, I adore superheroes. The more complex and nuanced takeaway is a sense of justice and need to use my gifts for the good of mankind, to stand up for those that are different and underprivileged, wherever they may be. The stories of Batman, Spiderman and the X-Men drove those messages home powerfully. However, they were tempered by something else or I’d likely be a crazed vigilante…

The Beatles. I listened to The Beatles starting at a young age, thanks to parents who have a generally solid taste in classic rock, helping me appreciate the good stuff. Love and Peace have been at the center of my worldview for a long time. This complicates some of the influence of the superhero cartoons I adored, but produces I think a more nuanced and healthy perspective on the world. I trace all good in the world back to love, and think that that love emanates from God, spreading out to all of God’s children, touching us and inspiring us to bless the lives of others. (Also, debatably responsible for my long hair throughout my teenage years and a fascination with counter-culture movements, specifically hippies.)

All of these influences though are filtered through my fundamental understanding of the world, which is largely based in my Mormon roots that define the basic structure of the tree of my personal philosophy. The Book of Mormon plays a huge role in that, as I’ve read at least a chapter from it every night since I was 12, so for almost 12 years. That reading grounds me, as does my Church attendance and engagement with Church doctrine via the Bloggernacle and fellow classmates at the one and only BYU.

Some of the influence that media has had on me has been negligible and relatively harmless, while other portions have been fairly significant for good or ill.

Being aware of the impact that media can have on us, should cause us to be more deliberate in our media consumption. Obviously, we can’t know every tiny piece of material that we’re going to see and sometimes we can be influenced by relatively small portions of the overall whole, although the vast majority of things that influence me in a positive or neutral way I have an overall positive connotation associated with them.

As we consume media and seek to be aware and discerning, it is fairly easy to make wise choices and find things that have a positive net impact on us. At least, I can generally tell from the feeling I get watching a trailer and some brief research into the cast and crew of a movie whether I want to watch something. Other forms can be a bit more difficult, but easier to obtain and stop part way through if it doesn’t seem worthwhile.

 

So good...yet, too dark for me.

Occasionally, I have not done this. The Prestige and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials are two examples. I’ve seen The Prestige a handful (maybe two handfuls) of times and each time felt something dark and wrong about it. I don’t know what it is or why, but it feels dark, so I have since tried to avoid it and anything that starts to give me that feeling, which is hard because I otherwise loved the movie and all involved. His Dark Materials is the same way. I read them in fifth grade or so and felt a dark nagging feeling that made me uncomfortable, but I kept reading because I needed to know what happened and it was fascinating. I re-read the books around the time the film came out and the controversy arose, as I tried to defend the books. As I read them, that darkness returned and I tried to push it away as the books being anti-organized religion, or anti-Catholic, but once I got to the final book, it was clear that the message of the book was anti-God.

Anyway, point being—if we want it, we can have the ability to feel and filter out the good from the bad on our own.

Virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy and of good report. All of those things can be ours, if we choose to seek them. Now’s the part where you feel all energized and motivated and start looking for quality entertainment. I can give you some suggestions if you’re really not finding anything…