...whatever seemed right...

"In those days Israel had no king, so the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." Judges 21:25

I have just gotten through the last section of Judges. Seemingly a litany of inappropriate or immoral behavior (by today's standards), it does have within it some gems of appropriate and moral behavior. However, the apologist view at the end of the book is the description given above. The people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.

"in their own eyes" seems to fly in the face of legalism. If legalism can be defined as adherence to an external reference standard, mutually agreed upon by believers in that faith system, then behavior described by the term "whatever seemed right" by definition is anti-legalistic. Had the people agreed to pursue a single course of action, then this description of their behavior would not be applicable. That is, the book of Judges would not be a history of defeats, failures, immorality, and chaos punctuated by brief periods of enlightenment and morality. It seems that the writer of the history is basing his argument for a belief in a legalistic code of conduct by describing the variety of immoral acts committed by the people of Israel (kidnapping women to "get around" the proscription of a prior oath, etc).

So, what then should be done? What lessons are to be learned? It seems that the quotation above gives a two pronged answer. First, there must be an earthly "king." The quotation implies that because there was no earthly king, the people did whatever seemed right. The deeper concern below the denotation of the words would be their connotation, that the "whatever seemed right" was, in fact, wrong, and that adherence to a reference standard, or legalism, was the answer.

So, we need a king, and we need legalism. Earlier in the blog, I have discussed Jesus' description of legalism, and the corruption of legalism by Pharisaical behavior. As much as I personally dislike reading the Gospel of John, today's reading had an interesting answer that spoke directly to this argument.

When discussing the difference between Jews and Samaritans, Jesus downplays the differences between the two, and describes the fundamental ideas behind worship. "For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

Most of us can agree on the intent of the spirit. Faithfulness to an idea, or a deity, is pretty similar. It hits a fundamental part of our consciousness that is relatively similar among all humans, regardless of nationality or of belief system. As a species, it seems to be in our genetics. The second point of his sentence is where the complexities arise.

"...in truth"

Whose truth? What human form does that "truth" take? Is it in turning prayer wheels in Thailand, waving incense burners in Italy, or falling on the floor and speaking in tongues in Alabama? Does the fundamental differences in these behaviors come down to the argument of "whatever seems right" to the people, or can we tend back toward a legalistic approach of a unified set of conduct so we are not tempted to do whatever seems right in our own eyes, and justify mass kidnapping, murder, or rape?

It is that push-pull of Christian worship that seems to keep the majority of worshippers on the appropriate road, headed in the right direction. Most of us walk that road without much problem, looking off in the distance at those who stray and fall to the side in their (what we might call "insane") interpretations of "whatever seems right."

But the formula of pushing and pulling over the ages seems to tend to be a guide which has worked pretty well in getting us as a species to move forward and slowly evolve to a more moral civilization. People can always look at some of the institutionalized abuses today (human trafficking, etc.) and say we are de-evolving, morally, but while that particular problem is epidemic, the response to it is one of outrage, not of accepted commerce (e.g., temple prostitution), and so the civilization as a whole, despite its obvious shortcomings, is advancing via this push-pull between "spirit" and "truth."

Obviously, there is no ultimate answer except adherence to the process. We will never get it "right" but we can pursue the attempt to understand how to get it "more" right, and it is in the pursuit that the answer lies, I believe. It's that pursuit that keeps us from settling for "whatever seems right" and yet steers us away from the corruption of legalism, keeping us focused, ahead, on God.