The text below is a comment I made 8 Mar 2014 to a March 2014 blog post by Bill Walker.
This should be another topic for our growing hitlist, Bill. In the past I tended to believe what’s written in this post. It was a favorite assertion of my dad’s too. However, the more time I spend on the other side in true faith and grace, the more I find that even the young have the law “written in their hearts” (as in Jeremiah), directly placed there by God, which means a few things to me:
Love is the tool by which we open up the perspectives of people so they encounter an ever growing sense of what their best can be. I would suggest that this “mechanism” (which is far from mechanical) is a far better “schoolteacher” than the law. If we had this approach as well ingrained in our culture as we have the law today, the kingdom of heaven will have come indeed.
My response to Bill's response, 10 Mar 2014. Bill's response is in italics: Thanks for this Guy. I don’t really think I disagree, and I’m not sure Rohr would either! It all depends on what we mean by “law,” right? The way it is used here is surely open-ended. It may be helpful to read a previous excerpt from Rohr that sets this one up a little more. Here it is, from pp. 4-5, same book: The first half of life is of crucial importance. You need boundaries, identity, safety, and some degree of order and consistency to get started personally and culturally. (Conservatives are much better here, but the trouble is that they stay here!) You have to have boundaries to move beyond boundaries, without dropping the boundaries! This is paradox. It’s both-and. You have to have a home to which you can return. In other words, you need to know who you are. You also need to feel “special”; you need your “narcissistic fix.” By that I mean we all need some successes, response, and positive feedback early in life, or we will spend the rest of our lives demanding it, or bemoaning the lack of it, from others. There is a good and needed “narcissism,” if you want to call it that. You have to first have an ego structure to then let go of it and move beyond it. Only people who have internalized some impulse control tend to be successful in life, jobs, and relationships. If you are mirrored well by others early in life you do not have to spend the rest of your life looking in Narcissus’ mirror or begging for the attention of others. You have already been “attended to” and now feel basically good—and always will—and can now attend to others instead of yourself. If you were properly mirrored when you were young, you are now free to mirror others and to see yourself honestly and helpfully. I can see why a number of saints spoke of prayer itself as simply receiving the ever-benevolent gaze of God, returning it in kind, mutually gazing, and finally recognizing that it is one single gaze received and bounced back. And I do believe some people receive this loving gaze from God, even though they never got it from either of their parents. Their longing and their need is so great, and grace is always there to fill the vacuum.
Yep, I see what you mean, Bill. Even so, I think it is a huge stretch to claim that what's described in this second excerpt could be seen as law or even a precursor of law. I guess my point is that law is concerned with guilt and innocence above all else, and this is an important part of what I don't believe is justifiable esp. in a personal, interpersonal, or parenting context. So for example, as you know, I utterly reject the idea of original sin, for to me there is no natural law which can form the basis of any such conviction.
To the point of this additional excerpt: Boundaries are just distinctions, and they help us recognize the world and address it. They also lead the way to seeing how distinct things interact. These functions are of course vitally important to conceiving of the world and finding a place in it.
More to the point on parenting, there's a useful distinction kids should learn between "displeasing to Dad" and "pleasing to Dad". However, even here, I don't think guilt vs innocence should come into play. I guess I have found that law is not a good metaphor for parenting. I am very comfortable with things like distinction, displeasure, better vs worse, regard, esteem, empathy, and even anger and other emotions as contrasted with their counterparts, etc. But I think parents go astray when they set themselves up as judges of guilt and innocence.
Law ultimately comes down to that which would be justified as forcefully upheld even unto the harm of a lawbreaker. The OT is all about this kind of harmful law and judgment.
Example: As a parent, if I ever found myself in a position where I had to choose between mercy and some alternative, I should know that I am already far astray of my appropriate role. Mercy has no place in a loving relationship, and mercy's whole basis comes from an assertion of raw power over another sentient being. Mercy has a place within law, but not in love.
For another parenting example, I believe in consequences, but not in punishment. There is no authority in all reality which can rightly claim a punitive role. The best claim may be that of a democratic judiciary with due process and the rest. But again, while it may be the best tool yet going for societies to use, I still see it as a very clumsy one, quite behind the times and in need of revolutionary improvement.
another response posted shortly thereafter
I guess said another way: My problem with Rohr’s thesis (through this tiny pinhole view I have) is with the lack of clarity between the Law with its implications vs. other modes of distinction which are healthy and constructive. Perhaps while he recognizes a continuum for making distinctions and “judgments”, he may be missing that somewhere along the line we start doing more harm than good. That is, somewhere in the basis of his thesis I suspect an apology for God’s lawful stance as demonstrated in the OT or (exactly the same thing) a justification for the way his father raised him or how he raise(d/s) his own kids. To the extent that’s what’s going on there, I’m afraid I just can’t go there with him.
It is my hope that no one attempts to exercise even a smaller version of that sort of law in this life because it is based on a flawed understanding of humanity and life in general, something we are fortunate enough to have to some degree grown out of as a culture, thanks in no small part to the message of Jesus.
To me it is essential that we understand that Jesus meant it when he said “It is finished.” To me part of what he was saying is finished is the role of law in interpersonal discourse, and in time even in societal structure. It is not something we should be modeling in our child rearing practices in order to “do for our children as God did for humanity” or any such justification. The whole idea should be eschewed as a source and expression of evil.